Why Is Ethically Borderline Behavior Necessary?
As the posts previous to this indicate, Random House's filings have contained questionable statements which seem to put in my mouth, words I never said, attributed actions I never took or stated that I did not take actions I provably did.
Those statements seem to violate the ethical standards outlined below and raise the issue of why? Why, if they have a strong case, do they engage in this sort of behavior?
Please keep the following in mind as you read the blog.
The New York State Bar Association's Code of Responsibility has some cogent things to say about this.
On page 9, it says:
"DR 1-102 [§1200.3] Misconduct.
A. A lawyer or law firm shall not:
4. Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
5. Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
7. Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness
as a lawyer."
Page 60 also has some relevant observations:
"EC 7-26 The law and Disciplinary Rules prohibit the use of fraudulent, false, or
perjured testimony or evidence. A lawyer who knowingly participates in introduction
of such testimony or evidence is subject to discipline. A lawyer should,
however, present any admissible evidence the client desires to have presented
unless the lawyer knows, or from facts within the lawyer’s knowledge should
know, that such testimony or evidence is false, fraudulent, or perjured.
"EC 7-27 Because it interferes with the proper administration of justice, a lawyer
should not suppress evidence that the lawyer or the client has a legal obligation
to reveal or produce. In like manner, a lawyer should not advise or cause a person
to hide or to leave the jurisdiction of a tribunal for the purpose of being
unavailable as witness therein"
And then, there is page 63:
"DR 7-102 [§1200.33] Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law.
A. In the representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:
4. Knowingly use perjured testimony or false evidence.
5. Knowingly make a false statement of law or fact.
6. Participate in the creation or preservation of evidence when the lawyer
knows or it is obvious that the evidence is false."
Those statements seem to violate the ethical standards outlined below and raise the issue of why? Why, if they have a strong case, do they engage in this sort of behavior?
Please keep the following in mind as you read the blog.
The New York State Bar Association's Code of Responsibility has some cogent things to say about this.
On page 9, it says:
"DR 1-102 [§1200.3] Misconduct.
A. A lawyer or law firm shall not:
4. Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
5. Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
7. Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness
as a lawyer."
Page 60 also has some relevant observations:
"EC 7-26 The law and Disciplinary Rules prohibit the use of fraudulent, false, or
perjured testimony or evidence. A lawyer who knowingly participates in introduction
of such testimony or evidence is subject to discipline. A lawyer should,
however, present any admissible evidence the client desires to have presented
unless the lawyer knows, or from facts within the lawyer’s knowledge should
know, that such testimony or evidence is false, fraudulent, or perjured.
"EC 7-27 Because it interferes with the proper administration of justice, a lawyer
should not suppress evidence that the lawyer or the client has a legal obligation
to reveal or produce. In like manner, a lawyer should not advise or cause a person
to hide or to leave the jurisdiction of a tribunal for the purpose of being
unavailable as witness therein"
And then, there is page 63:
"DR 7-102 [§1200.33] Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law.
A. In the representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:
4. Knowingly use perjured testimony or false evidence.
5. Knowingly make a false statement of law or fact.
6. Participate in the creation or preservation of evidence when the lawyer
knows or it is obvious that the evidence is false."
posted by Lewis Perdue at 2:13 PM
3 Comments:
That's the same thing as all politicians are crooks. No they aren't but some are. Good luck with the reial and appeal should that be necessary.
Trial.
Trial.
Yeah, that's what I want.
And Random House will lie to prevent.
Post a Comment
<< Home