DOJ-OGR-00010127.jpg
767 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
5
Events
6
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
767 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on April 6, 2012, presents an opinion on the ethical obligations of Brune & Richard lawyers concerning disclosures related to a new trial motion involving juror Conrad. It concludes that the lawyers did not violate their ethical obligations in their research, motions, or communications with the Court. The opinion is based on a review of various legal documents and transcripts, and references the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Conrad | Juror |
Juror whose conduct is the basis for a motion for a new trial
|
| Catherine Conrad |
Author of a letter to the Government; subject of a jury questionnaire and voir dire responses
|
|
| Susan Brune |
Author of letters; affiant in an affidavit with exhibits
|
|
| Parse | Defendant |
Party who filed a Waiver Brief
|
| Government attorneys | Attorneys |
Conducted adverse direct examination at a hearing
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Brune & Richard | Law firm |
Lawyers whose ethical obligations regarding disclosure and conduct are being analyzed
|
| Court | Legal body |
Recipient of disclosures; participant in a telephone conference call; where local rules are incorporated
|
| Government | Government agency |
Recipient of Catherine Conrad's letter; party in a waiver brief; conducted examination at a hearing
|
| Southern District of New York | Court |
Court whose local rules incorporate the New York Rules of Professional Conduct
|
Timeline (5 events)
2012-02-15/2012-02-16
Hearing with sworn testimony and adverse direct examination by Government attorneys
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Source of the Rules of Professional Conduct relevant to the case
|
Relationships (6)
Brune & Richard lawyers' ethical obligations regarding a new trial motion based on Juror Conrad's conduct
Brune & Richard lawyers' ethical obligations regarding disclosure to the Court and participation in a conference call with the Court
Catherine Conrad sent a letter to the Government
Susan Brune's affidavit includes Catherine Conrad's jury questionnaire and voir dire responses
Susan Brune sent letters and filed an affidavit in a case involving the Government
Key Quotes (1)
"A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously"Source
— New York Rule 3.3(a) and (b)
(Quoted as a relevant legal standard for lawyer obligations)
DOJ-OGR-00010127.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,332 characters)
Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 522 Filed 04/06/12 Page 2 of 29
A-5844
A-5844
separate question of whether the motion for a new trial based on the conduct of juror Conrad is meritorious. That is not a question of legal ethics.
3. In summary, my opinion is that (i) the Brune & Richard lawyers had no ethical obligation to disclose the results of their March 2011 research in March, or the results of their March and May 2011 research in May; (ii) the Brune & Richard lawyers had no ethical obligation to disclose the existence or the results of their March and May research in their July 8 motion for a new trial or during the July 15 conference call with the Court; and (iii) nothing the Brune & Richard lawyers said or did in the July 8 memorandum or the July 15 conference call violated their ethical obligations.
Factual Assumptions
4. I have read the following documents:
--Catherine Conrad's letter to the Government dated May 25, 2011;
--Defendants' Brief in Support of a New Trial dated July 8.2011;
--Transcript of Telephone Conference with Court dated July 15, 2011;
--Letter from Susan Brune dated July 21, 2011;
--Letter from Susan Brune dated July 29, 2011;
--Affidavit of Susan Brune with Exhibits (including Catherine Conrad's jury questionnaire and voir dire responses) dated September 15, 2011;
--Government's Waiver Brief dated October 7, 2011;
--Defendant Parse's Waiver Brief dated October 27, 2011; and
--Transcript of Hearing dated February 15 and 16, 2012.
--Catherine Conrad's letter to the Government dated May 25, 2011;
--Defendants' Brief in Support of a New Trial dated July 8.2011;
--Transcript of Telephone Conference with Court dated July 15, 2011;
--Letter from Susan Brune dated July 21, 2011;
--Letter from Susan Brune dated July 29, 2011;
--Affidavit of Susan Brune with Exhibits (including Catherine Conrad's jury questionnaire and voir dire responses) dated September 15, 2011;
--Government's Waiver Brief dated October 7, 2011;
--Defendant Parse's Waiver Brief dated October 27, 2011; and
--Transcript of Hearing dated February 15 and 16, 2012.
5. My opinion is based on the cited documents and I assume as true the facts that emerge from the sworn testimony at the hearing held February 15 and 16, 2012. I note that the testimony at that hearing was subject to robust adverse direct examination by Government attorneys.
General Observations And Legal Standards
6. The New York Rules of Professional Conduct (hereafter "New York Rules") specifically identify when a lawyer is obligated to disclose information to the Court. The New York Rules are incorporated in the local rules of this Court. See Southern District of New York Local Rule 1.5(b)(5).
7. Relevant here is New York Rule 3.3(a) and (b), which provides:
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously
DOJ-OGR-00010127
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document