Where a litigant thereby understands the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct, and is instructed to recognize and document instances of unprofessional or vexatious
conduct by opposing counsel, there should be clear cost consequences in court against the party shown to be engaging in such conduct, in addition to any reprimands or other disciplinary actions that might be instituted by the governing professional body.
[2] Such
conduct by opposing counsel has been linked to a range of negative consequences experienced by SRLs, including the depletion of personal funds, various health issues and even instability or loss of employment.
Not exact matches
Although I dispute his apparent view that recognized» as
opposed to fanciful» norms of international law or codes of professional
conduct would restrict actual practice under the regimen ridiculously called «enhanced interrogation,» as described in the Office of Legal
Counsel memoranda profligately disclosed
by the current administration, I have nothing against «conscientious reflection» on the issue and lively discussion of it.
It was an informative gathering with lively roundtable discussions amongst peers on interesting e-discovery topics such as: judges ordering the use of predictive coding, indexing data
by concepts, the practicality of co-operation and disclosure of predictive coding to
opposing counsel, whether it's possible to
conduct privilege reviews using predictive coding and even securing executive buy - in for «spring cleaning» data remediation projects.
In general, these codes of
conduct require lawyers to treat
opposing parties who are not represented
by counsel politely and in the same courteous manner as they would treat a fellow lawyer.
I once
conducted a mediation where I expected the mediator to ratify an offer that had been presented
by the
opposing counsel to my client.
The court found that the lawyer's statements violated Rule 6.03 of the Rules of Professional
Conduct, and ran contrary to Principle 27 of the Principles of Civility published
by The Advocates» Society, which provide that a lawyer should not: ``... attribute bad motives or improper
conduct to
opposing Counsel, except when relevant to the issues of the case and well - founded.»
There is a greater likelihood of maintaining privilege protections in interviews
conducted by outside
counsel because they are more likely to be viewed
by courts as
conducting an investigation for the primary purpose of providing legal advice, as
opposed to in - house
counsel who often operate in a business capacity in their daily functions.
My resume will provide you with information on how I well I worked in a judicial setting
by conducting depositions and preparing exhibits along with participating in negotiations with
opposing counsels.
I once
conducted a mediation where I expected the mediator to ratify an offer that had been presented
by the
opposing counsel to my client.