DOJ-OGR-00010126.jpg
757 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
6
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal declaration (court filing)
File Size:
757 KB
Summary
This document is the first page of a declaration by Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at NYU, filed on April 6, 2012, in the case United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. Gillers outlines his qualifications and states he was asked to address whether attorneys for the firm Brune & Richard met their ethical obligations regarding the disclosure of a 'July 21 letter' and an investigation into 'Juror No. 1.' The document appears to be part of a larger Department of Justice release (DOJ-OGR stamp), though the specific text on this page relates to the Daugerdas tax fraud case rather than explicitly mentioning Epstein.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Stephen Gillers | Declarant / Law Professor |
Expert on legal ethics submitting the declaration.
|
| Paul M. Daugerdas | Defendant |
Named defendant in the case caption.
|
| William H. Pauley, III | Judge |
Presiding judge listed in the caption (The Honorable).
|
| Juror No. 1 | Juror |
Subject of an investigation regarding disclosure obligations.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court Southern District of New York |
Court where the document was filed.
|
|
| New York University School of Law |
Employer of Stephen Gillers.
|
|
| American Bar Association |
Professional organization mentioned in Gillers' qualifications.
|
|
| ABA's Center for Professional Responsibility |
Organization where Gillers is active.
|
|
| Brune & Richard |
Law firm whose attorneys' ethical obligations are being questioned.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Implied by the footer stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the District Court and NYU.
|
Relationships (2)
I am a law professor at New York University School of Law
investigation into Juror No. 1
Key Quotes (2)
"whether the attorneys for Brune & Richard involved in this matter would have satisfied their ethical obligations if they failed to disclose the contents of the July 21 letter and their complete investigation into Juror No. 1."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010126.jpg
Quote #1
"I have been asked, therefore, to address any disclosure duty in March, May, and July of 2011."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010126.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,200 characters)
Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 522 Filed 04/06/12 Page 1 of 29
A-5843
A-5843
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. S3 09 Cr. 581 (WHP)
)
The Honorable William H. Pauley, III
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. S3 09 Cr. 581 (WHP)
)
The Honorable William H. Pauley, III
PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
DECLARATION OF STEPHEN GILLERS
I, Stephen Gillers, under penalty of perjury, declare as follows:
Qualifications
1. My name is Stephen Gillers. I am a law professor at New York University School of
Law, where I have taught the rules and law governing lawyers and judges (“legal ethics”)
regularly since 1978. I am author of a leading casebook in the field, Regulation of Lawyers:
Problems of Law and Ethics (9th ed. 2012). I have spoken hundreds of times on the subject of
legal ethics at state and local bar associations nationwide and at American Bar Association
meetings, at state and federal judicial conferences, and at law firms and corporate law offices in
the United States and abroad. For more than a decade, I have been and remain active in the legal
ethics work of the ABA’s Center for Professional Responsibility, spending hundreds of hours
yearly on this work. Most recently, I have been a member of the ABA’s Ethics 20/20
Commission, a three and a half year project to review the rules of ethics governing lawyers in
light of globalization and advance in technology. I have written widely in the area, including for
law journals and the law and popular press. Legal ethics is the primary focus of my academic
research. My resume is annexed as Exhibit A.
Law, where I have taught the rules and law governing lawyers and judges (“legal ethics”)
regularly since 1978. I am author of a leading casebook in the field, Regulation of Lawyers:
Problems of Law and Ethics (9th ed. 2012). I have spoken hundreds of times on the subject of
legal ethics at state and local bar associations nationwide and at American Bar Association
meetings, at state and federal judicial conferences, and at law firms and corporate law offices in
the United States and abroad. For more than a decade, I have been and remain active in the legal
ethics work of the ABA’s Center for Professional Responsibility, spending hundreds of hours
yearly on this work. Most recently, I have been a member of the ABA’s Ethics 20/20
Commission, a three and a half year project to review the rules of ethics governing lawyers in
light of globalization and advance in technology. I have written widely in the area, including for
law journals and the law and popular press. Legal ethics is the primary focus of my academic
research. My resume is annexed as Exhibit A.
Question Addressed And Summary Of Conclusion
2. I have been asked to address the question the Court posed on February 16, 2012 –
namely, “whether the attorneys for Brune & Richard involved in this matter would have satisfied
their ethical obligations if they failed to disclose the contents of the July 21 letter and their
complete investigation into Juror No. 1.” The question does not specify a time frame for any
possible “fail[ure] to disclose.” I have been asked, therefore, to address any disclosure duty in
March, May, and July of 2011. I have not been asked to address, and I am not addressing, the
namely, “whether the attorneys for Brune & Richard involved in this matter would have satisfied
their ethical obligations if they failed to disclose the contents of the July 21 letter and their
complete investigation into Juror No. 1.” The question does not specify a time frame for any
possible “fail[ure] to disclose.” I have been asked, therefore, to address any disclosure duty in
March, May, and July of 2011. I have not been asked to address, and I am not addressing, the
DOJ-OGR-00010126
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document