5 ms·

> Offhand, this kind of sounds like a parent asking their teenager to go and search their own room for drugs. I have expressed this attitude to corporate lawye

by ekidd 10y ago

> Offhand, this kind of sounds like a parent asking their teenager to go and search their own room for drugs. I have expressed this attitude to corporate lawyers before, and asked them how the system deals with bad actors. Basically, if a judge catches you lying during discovery, they can issue a default judgement against you and impose very serious additional damages. For example: http://newenglandinhouse.com/2015/06/09/default-judgment-affirmed-based-on-discovery-violations/ http://newenglandinhouse.com/2015/06/09/default-judgment-aff... Furthermore, the lawyers in question can be disbarred: https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/litigationnews/civil_procedure/101515-discovery-rules-abuse.html https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/litigationnews/civil... A sufficiently annoyed judge has a broad range of sanctions available for punishing people who get caught gaming the system. (Some of these sanctions may take years to fully play out, though.)

Hydraulix989 10y ago
It's pretty hard to catch if your only search interface is through the liar.
- WalterSear 10y ago
  Moreover, I've seen 'mistakes' and intentionally 'last minute' delivery of documents myself at trials, along with what essentially amounts to blatant filibustering. It was considered 'part of the game'. No one was punished.
  - milesrout 10y ago
    I've seen many cases thrown out of court for this.
    - stanleydrew 10y ago
      That's great if you're the defendant...
      - milesrout 10y ago
        It's good for everyone that the police can't skirt around the rules of discovery and present 'last minute evidence' that denies peoples' right to a free trial, yes.
        caf 10y ago
        The context here is civil cases (I think the GP means "respondent" rather than "defendant"?)
        bunderbunder 10y ago
        The terminology varies quite widely from place to place, but it's common for the word "defendant" to be used in both criminal and civil cases in the USA. Respondent's correct too. A lot of times you'll even see official documents not really pick a side on the question of terminology. They'll say things like "defendant/respondent" or "petitioner/plaintiff".
        milesrout 10y ago
        The context here is all cases.
        benchaney 10y ago
        Respondent is the term for the party advocating against overturning a previous ruling during an appeal. Defendant is correct in this case because this is not an appeal.
lern_too_spel 10y ago
If finding and reporting the documents already threatens bankrupt the defendant, imposing additional sanctions for lying about finding the documents isn't much of a threat.
- cosmie 10y ago
  Sanctions against a company, sure. But sanctions against a lawyer, up to and including the threat of disbarment, threatens a person's entire career and livelihood. Not that you can't find a lawyer willing to stomach the risk of walking close to that line and use their career as table stakes, but you'll pay them accordingly. A federal judge calling out your defendant's shenanigans so strongly raises that personal risk of sanctions to the lawyer of continuing to defend that client. And the defendant will keep having lawyers bail out until they either get their act together or the case ends (probably not in their favor, since they can't even keep a lawyer around for long).
michaelt 10y ago
Penalties or no, law firms have certainly participated in covering up illegal behaviour in the past. For example, during the News International phone hacking scandal [1] a law firm hired by NI participated in the cover-up, providing a sham "internal investigation" and "clean bill of health" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacki...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
GeneralMayhem 10y ago
For an example of a sufficiently annoyed judge using all the sanctions available, see what Judge Otis Wright did to Prenda Law: https://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/ https://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/ (especially https://www.popehat.com/2013/03/06/what-prenda-law-is-facing-in-los-angeles/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/03/06/what-prenda-law-is-facing...).

by ekidd 10y ago

Hydraulix989 10y ago

It's pretty hard to catch if your only search interface is through the liar.

WalterSear 10y ago
Moreover, I've seen 'mistakes' and intentionally 'last minute' delivery of documents myself at trials, along with what essentially amounts to blatant filibustering. It was considered 'part of the game'. No one was punished.
- milesrout 10y ago
  I've seen many cases thrown out of court for this.
  - stanleydrew 10y ago
    That's great if you're the defendant...
    - milesrout 10y ago
      It's good for everyone that the police can't skirt around the rules of discovery and present 'last minute evidence' that denies peoples' right to a free trial, yes.
      - caf 10y ago
        The context here is civil cases (I think the GP means "respondent" rather than "defendant"?)
        bunderbunder 10y ago
        The terminology varies quite widely from place to place, but it's common for the word "defendant" to be used in both criminal and civil cases in the USA. Respondent's correct too. A lot of times you'll even see official documents not really pick a side on the question of terminology. They'll say things like "defendant/respondent" or "petitioner/plaintiff".
        milesrout 10y ago
        The context here is all cases.
        benchaney 10y ago
        Respondent is the term for the party advocating against overturning a previous ruling during an appeal. Defendant is correct in this case because this is not an appeal.

lern_too_spel 10y ago

If finding and reporting the documents already threatens bankrupt the defendant, imposing additional sanctions for lying about finding the documents isn't much of a threat.

cosmie 10y ago
Sanctions against a company, sure. But sanctions against a lawyer, up to and including the threat of disbarment, threatens a person's entire career and livelihood. Not that you can't find a lawyer willing to stomach the risk of walking close to that line and use their career as table stakes, but you'll pay them accordingly. A federal judge calling out your defendant's shenanigans so strongly raises that personal risk of sanctions to the lawyer of continuing to defend that client. And the defendant will keep having lawyers bail out until they either get their act together or the case ends (probably not in their favor, since they can't even keep a lawyer around for long).

michaelt 10y ago

Penalties or no, law firms have certainly participated in covering up illegal behaviour in the past. For example, during the News International phone hacking scandal [1] a law firm hired by NI participated in the cover-up, providing a sham "internal investigation" and "clean bill of health" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacki...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

GeneralMayhem 10y ago

For an example of a sufficiently annoyed judge using all the sanctions available, see what Judge Otis Wright did to Prenda Law: https://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/ https://www.popehat.com/tag/prenda-law/ (especially https://www.popehat.com/2013/03/06/what-prenda-law-is-facing-in-los-angeles/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/03/06/what-prenda-law-is-facing...).