DOJ-OGR-00009450.jpg

950 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

4
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court filing / legal opinion / expert report
File Size: 950 KB
Summary

This document is a page from a legal filing (originally 2012, refiled 2022) discussing attorney ethics regarding the reporting of perjury (fraud on the tribunal). It cites a precedent case involving 'Doe,' arguing that an attorney must have actual knowledge, not just strong suspicion, of perjury before a duty to disclose arises. The author of this text notes in a footnote that they served as the expert witness for 'Doe' in a Connecticut disciplinary hearing.

People (4)

Name Role Context
Doe Subject of cited case
A lawyer in a precedent case who was accused of not reporting perjury; his discipline was reversed.
Author (Unidentified) Expert Witness
Refers to self in footnote: 'I was the expert for Doe in the Connecticut disciplinary hearing.'
The Witness Witness in cited case
Person alleged to have lied at a deposition in the 'Doe' case.
District Judge Judge in cited case
Concluded that Doe had information clearly establishing perjury.

Organizations (3)

Name Type Context
Doe Court
The court that issued the ruling in the cited 'Doe' case.
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Indicated by bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00009450.
New York Courts/Bar
Mentioned as having adopted Rules 3.3 (a) and (b).

Timeline (3 events)

2012-04-06
Original Document Filed in Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP
Court
2022-02-24
Document Filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
Court
Unspecified
Connecticut disciplinary hearing for 'Doe'
Connecticut
Doe Author (Expert)

Locations (2)

Location Context
Jurisdiction mentioned regarding adoption of legal rules.
Location of the disciplinary hearing mentioned in the footnote.

Relationships (1)

Author Professional/Expert Witness Doe
Footnote 2: 'I was the expert for Doe in the Connecticut disciplinary hearing.'

Key Quotes (4)

"knowledge is required before the disclosure duty arises."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00009450.jpg
Quote #1
"That a lawyer 'strongly suspected' fraud on the tribunal (a subjective test) was also insufficient."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00009450.jpg
Quote #2
"I was the expert for Doe in the Connecticut disciplinary hearing."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00009450.jpg
Quote #3
"We do not believe that the Code's drafters intended to throw the court system into such a morass."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00009450.jpg
Quote #4

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document