DOJ-OGR-00009451.jpg
995 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal memorandum / court filing exhibit
File Size:
995 KB
Summary
This document appears to be a page from a legal memorandum or expert report (filed as part of court proceedings in 2012 and re-filed in 2022) analyzing the ethical obligations of defense lawyers. It cites case law regarding the 'adversary system' and specifically questions 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. The text discusses the balance between client confidentiality and the duty of candor to the tribunal.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Lawyers from Brune & Richard LLP | Defense Counsel |
Subject of inquiry regarding potential violation of ethical duties for non-disclosure.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brune & Richard LLP |
Law firm under review in the document regarding a letter sent to the Court.
|
|
| US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Referenced via the In re Pennie & Edmonds LLP case citation.
|
|
| US Supreme Court |
Referenced via the Polk County v. Dodson case citation.
|
|
| American Bar Association |
Referenced in footnote regarding Model Rules.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by the bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00009451.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2012-04-05
Date the author visited the American Bar Association website referenced in footnote 3.
Online
2012-04-06
Filing of the document (Document 522 in Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP).
Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the citation of New York Rule 3.3(c).
|
Relationships (1)
Text refers to 'lawyers from Brune & Richard LLP' and discusses the duties of a defense lawyer advancing the 'undivided interests of his client'.
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-00009451.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-00009451.jpg
Quote #2
"These rules mandate disclosure of certain information to a court even if disclosure may harm the client and... even if the information is protected as confidential client information."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009451.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document