>I still don't understand why strictly separating ownership of the media company and the law firm wouldn't have been sufficient. Lawyers are not allowed to kno

>I still don't understand why strictly separating ownership of the media company and the law firm wouldn't have been sufficient. Lawyers are not allowed to knowingly misrepresent facts to the Court. So the Firm's interest would/should always be revealed. Ownership can always be traced back, this generally is revealed during discovery, but if as alleged the true ownership was not revealed because the very Firm who both is attorney of record and actually owns the the Plantiff's Company and the Firm willfully misrepresented that to the Court - never-mind the allegation of identify theft to deceive the Court.