Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Gary Dobry Subpoenas 41 SI Aliases -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TideGlider who wrote (195)	1/21/2002 1:46:19 PM
From: scion	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1136

Thanks TG...highly relevant to the matter at hand. I noticed this little ethics opinion from the Florida bar. I believe his attorney to be acting in a similar manner as to the attorney in the cited matter. OPINION 71-38 September 13, 1971 It is improper for a lawyer to subpoena records he knows are not germane to pending litigation as a tactic to intimidate the defendant or insurer to cooperate or settle. Committeeman Massey stated the opinion of the committee: The inquirer seeks advice on whether he transgresses ethical considerations when he subpoenas hospital records pertaining to a person when such person is not a party to the suit. He explained that this procedure is utilized as a hospital or opposing attorney or the attorney's insurance client is sometimes slow in supplying sufficient information on the involved claim, and he will subpoena the records in a pending suit although the records are not germane to the existing litigation. Also, it is pointed out by the attorney such procedure is very helpful and perhaps of assistance to a proposed defendant if he be a professional man who may be charged with malpractice and would not want the publicity of an action being filed. Present rules and practice give a lawyer great power with respect to requiring attendance of witnesses and the production of records. The attorney may acquire subpoenas in blank with the clerk's signature and seal thereon and serve them himself. The power is coupled with a corresponding obligation not to abuse it. The Committee is of the unanimous opinion that directing a subpoena to a person constitutes the assertion of the attorney as an officer of the court that he believes or has good reason to believe the person knows or has records to be produced which would disclose facts material to the case in which the subpoena is issued. Any other use of the subpoena power is highly improper and unethical. It may possibly constitute an actionable abuse of process, although this gratuitous observation should not be constituted as judgment by the Committee on a question of law. To approve the practice described is but to prostitute our discovery process and must be disapproved in every aspect. If our present discovery rules do not afford the attorneys enough latitude and flexibility, we might change the rules but we cannot here agree that the end suggested by the inquirer justifies the means. flabar.org

To: TideGlider who wrote (195)	1/21/2002 2:07:26 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 1136

Judge Directs Kenneth Starr to Justify Lewinsky Book Subpoena In a two-part April 6 ruling, Judge Norma Holloway Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia directed that independent counsel Kenneth Starr must "show cause," or explain why he needs to subpoena records of Monica Lewinsky's purchases from Kramerbooks, an independent Washington bookstore. ALA and other groups filed a sealed amicus brief April 2 supporting Kramerbooks' motion to quash the subpoena. Judge Johnson's ruling also "unsealed" the brief, making it public. Judith F. Krug, director of ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom, said that "library confidentiality records are in jeopardy if we don't fight this." The American Booksellers Foundation for Freedom of Expression says it will appeal if the subpoena is not quashed, she said, and "it means we may be in court for a long time." ala.org