The concept of an attorney accidentally obtaining an opposing lawyer's pretrial notes and using them for his own advantage seemed to leave California's Supreme Court justices with a bad taste in their mouths Tuesday. Especially when an attorney argued that having access to an opponent's work product provides a surprise factor that lets an attorney test or impeach an expert witness' testimony. Some pundits say the decision in the case could represent the court's most important legal ethics ruling in years.
October 03, 2007 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
The concept of an attorney accidentally obtaining an opposing lawyer’s pretrial notes and using them for his own tactical advantage seemed to leave the justices of the California Supreme Court with a bad taste in their mouths on Tuesday.
Especially when an attorney for El Segundo, Calif., lawyer Raymond Johnson argued that having access to an opponent’s work product provides a surprise factor that lets an attorney test or impeach an expert witness’ testimony.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
