DOJ-OGR-00010130.jpg
999 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court order / memorandum of law
File Size:
999 KB
Summary
This document page, filed on April 6, 2012, is part of a legal analysis discussing the ethical obligations of defense lawyers, specifically referencing New York Rules and Rule 11 sanctions. It cites case law (Pennie & Edmonds, Polk County v. Dodson) to establish the standards for 'bad faith' and the role of defense counsel in an adversary system. The text concludes by framing a specific inquiry into whether lawyers from the firm Brune & Richard LLP violated ethical duties by failing to disclose information prior to a letter sent to the Court on July 21, 2011.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Lawyers from Brune & Richard LLP | Defense Counsel |
Subject of inquiry regarding whether they violated ethical duties by not disclosing information prior to a July 2011 ...
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brune & Richard LLP |
Law firm representing the client (Epstein context implied), investigated for potential ethical violations.
|
|
| Pennie & Edmonds LLP |
Cited in case law (In re Pennie & Edmonds LLP) regarding Rule 11 sanctions.
|
|
| American Bar Association |
Referenced in footnotes regarding Model Rules.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
DOJ-OGR stamp at the bottom of the page.
|
|
| Supreme Court |
Cited regarding Polk County v. Dodson.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in context of 'New York Rule 3.3(c)'.
|
Relationships (1)
Text discusses 'advancing the undivided interests of his client' and analyzes the firm's ethical obligations.
Key Quotes (3)
"The question I turn to now is whether lawyers from Brune & Richard LLP acted in violation of any of the exceptions to their duties in the adversary system by not disclosing certain information prior to their July 21, 2011, letter to the Court."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010130.jpg
Quote #1
"But it posits that a defense lawyer best serves the public, not by acting on behalf of the State or in concert with it, but rather by advancing 'the undivided interests of his client.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010130.jpg
Quote #2
"Because the lawyer cannot take it back, Pennie & Edmonds holds that the required mental state is 'bad faith,' a subjective test like actual knowledge."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010130.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document