Lying Lawyer Cut From Case

"My daddy is a movie actor, and sometimes he plays the good guy, and sometimes he plays the lawyer."

-- Malcolm Ford, describing what his father, actor Harrison Ford, does for a living.

Contrary to popular belief, our legal systems is based on, and depends on, the integrity of its lawyers. Nevertheless, I am still surprised when I read about lawyers being punished for lying.

So listen up, lawyers and clients: its not worth it.

Earlier this month in Siupa v Astra Tech, plaintiff's pro hac vice counsel Jeffrey Ryan was held to have 1) coached his client during a deposition (which is prohibited), and then 2) lied to the court about the coaching. The court revoked Ryan's pro hac vice admission, and awarded monetary sanctions to the defendant.

"Mr. Ryan wrote something on his legal pad while the Plaintiff struggled to answer a question, pushed the pad toward his client, and then flipped it over to shield it from defense counsel's view. Immediately thereafter, Mr. Ryan failed to do what the Court would expect a lawyer to do in this circumstance: either show the legal pad to defense counsel when she stated her beliefs, or place the pad in a sealed envelope (if, for instance, it contained privileged information), taking steps to memorialize either action on the record during the deposition . . . . Instead, Mr. Ryan, in a patently false statement, denied having taken the actions defense counsel (and the court reporter) had witnessed. When the deposition was temporarily suspended, he took the legal pad, left the room, somehow disposed of the relevant writing, and returned. He later made another false statement on the record, before the parties left defense counsel's conference room, regarding the content of the writing on the legal pad.

. . . [A]t the hearing before this Court, Mr. Ryan again falsely denied his actions and knowingly presented as evidence a legal pad that he had intentionally altered."

The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the sanctions award and Ryan's expulsion. "In short, the district court found as a matter of fact that Ryan attempted to communicate surreptitiously with his client while a question was pending at a deposition, that Ryan manufactured false evidence, and that Ryan lied to the court. . . . Reduced to its nub, this is a simple, but important case. ... Anyone who thinks it important that lawyers not lie to judges would be surprised if the court had done otherwise. "

Word to the wise.

For the full decision, click on the link below.

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/nlj%20pro%20hac%20vice%201117.pdf