Legal Ethics Forum: SCOTUS declines to discipline Foley lawyer who filed oddly worded petition
by John Steele
"News here. The order is here. In comments following my initial posts, I had suggested that there was no ethics violation but that the court should just strike the brief for not being a "plain statement" or something like that, and it looks as if that's the basis for the court's reminder to all attorneys about their responsibilities. The text of the order: A response having been filed, the Order to Show Cause, dated December 8, 2014, is discharged. All Members of the Bar are reminded, however, that they are responsible—as Officers of the Court—for compliance with the requirement of Supreme Court Rule 14.3 that petitions for certiorari be stated “in plain terms,” and may not delegate that responsibility to the client. "
'via Blog this'
by John Steele
"News here. The order is here. In comments following my initial posts, I had suggested that there was no ethics violation but that the court should just strike the brief for not being a "plain statement" or something like that, and it looks as if that's the basis for the court's reminder to all attorneys about their responsibilities. The text of the order: A response having been filed, the Order to Show Cause, dated December 8, 2014, is discharged. All Members of the Bar are reminded, however, that they are responsible—as Officers of the Court—for compliance with the requirement of Supreme Court Rule 14.3 that petitions for certiorari be stated “in plain terms,” and may not delegate that responsibility to the client. "
'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment