Duke motion: Lax suit plaintiffs broke ethics rule
By: Eugene Wang
Issue date: 3/3/08 Section: News
Last update: 3/3/08 at 7:35 AM EST
Last update: 3/3/08 at 7:35 AM EST
Attorneys for the University claimed in a U.S. District Court memorandum filed Friday that attorneys for plaintiffs including 38 current and former members of the men's lacrosse team violated state and federal ethics rules in publicizing their suit against Duke.
The filing states that the plaintiffs disregarded professional conduct standards by announcing the case via a news conference, press release and Web site statement.
"When a complaint contains such incendiary language, an attorney should not be permitted to hide behind the language of the complaint and make a statement to the press that strings together paragraphs that are highly prejudicial," it reads.
The filing points to the involvement of Bob Bork, head of the Bork Communication Group and a media consultant for the case, as evidence of the plaintiff's intention to publicize the lawsuit.
"What Duke is saying is, 'Look, this publicity firm is really the alter ego working with the lawyers, so they shouldn't be able to say things that the lawyers aren't allowed to say,'" Professor of Law Thomas Metzloff said. "They are making sure that the lawyers aren't speaking through someone else."
He added that the motion is "future-oriented" and was filed to inform the judge of the publicity that the lawsuit might attract rather than to reprimand the plaintiffs.
The filing claims that the public means by which the plaintiffs announced the case may distort court proceedings. The plaintiffs have asked for a jury trial.
Bork responded to the filing on the suit's Web site. "Duke's motion to keep information about this case out of the media is utterly meritless," he wrote. "We will file our response promptly."
The plaintiffs accuse Duke, Durham and several individuals of fraud in supporting the prosecution of three accused lacrosse team members in March 2006.
No specific actions are requested of Judge James Beaty in the Duke attorneys' filing, but it does ask the court to recognize the ethics violation. The rule in question prohibits lawyers from making statements outside the courtroom that are intended to attract publicity and "have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a court proceeding."
The same rule factored into former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong's disbarment in Summer 2007. Metzloff, however, distinguished the claim from the process that led to Nifong's disbarment. "It's much more about future control of the media in this case-it's nothing like what happened [with Nifong]," he said. "I doubt it will be a very significant moment in this case."
The filing states that the plaintiffs disregarded professional conduct standards by announcing the case via a news conference, press release and Web site statement.
"When a complaint contains such incendiary language, an attorney should not be permitted to hide behind the language of the complaint and make a statement to the press that strings together paragraphs that are highly prejudicial," it reads.
The filing points to the involvement of Bob Bork, head of the Bork Communication Group and a media consultant for the case, as evidence of the plaintiff's intention to publicize the lawsuit.
"What Duke is saying is, 'Look, this publicity firm is really the alter ego working with the lawyers, so they shouldn't be able to say things that the lawyers aren't allowed to say,'" Professor of Law Thomas Metzloff said. "They are making sure that the lawyers aren't speaking through someone else."
He added that the motion is "future-oriented" and was filed to inform the judge of the publicity that the lawsuit might attract rather than to reprimand the plaintiffs.
The filing claims that the public means by which the plaintiffs announced the case may distort court proceedings. The plaintiffs have asked for a jury trial.
Bork responded to the filing on the suit's Web site. "Duke's motion to keep information about this case out of the media is utterly meritless," he wrote. "We will file our response promptly."
The plaintiffs accuse Duke, Durham and several individuals of fraud in supporting the prosecution of three accused lacrosse team members in March 2006.
No specific actions are requested of Judge James Beaty in the Duke attorneys' filing, but it does ask the court to recognize the ethics violation. The rule in question prohibits lawyers from making statements outside the courtroom that are intended to attract publicity and "have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a court proceeding."
The same rule factored into former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong's disbarment in Summer 2007. Metzloff, however, distinguished the claim from the process that led to Nifong's disbarment. "It's much more about future control of the media in this case-it's nothing like what happened [with Nifong]," he said. "I doubt it will be a very significant moment in this case."
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 42
Trinity '06
posted 3/03/08 @ 8:23 AM EST
Duke? Ethics?
Pot, meet Kettle.
roper
posted 3/03/08 @ 8:26 AM EST
The motion against the website, www.dukelawsuit.com, was, in part, an attempt to restrict the availability of the written Complaint to members of the Duke community. (Continued…)
Truly sad
posted 3/03/08 @ 8:39 AM EST
It is sad when todays young college students are unaware of the right to a public trial. The circumstances that are given secret trials are by no means met here. (Continued…)
mudlark
posted 3/03/08 @ 8:52 AM EST
Maybe we can just have a giant GAG ORDER and prevent anyone from speaking. That way the public will never be able to find out what happened or who in the Admin. (Continued…)
RLK
posted 3/03/08 @ 9:03 AM EST
"The horrible question floating around in people's minds here: Did the lacrosse players make a special request for a black dancer that night? ESPN.com contacted several escort services like the one that provided the lacrosse players with two dancers. (Continued…)
Enough of This Already
posted 3/03/08 @ 9:13 AM EST
Lax Suit Plaintiffs Broke Ethics Rule,
Your very headline is typical of why this motion by Duke must fail! Where is the "alleged" ?
Once again, The Chronic, and by extension Duke slanders the Lax Players. (Continued…)
Duke parent
posted 3/03/08 @ 10:27 AM EST
The players definately requested white dancers. FACT.
watt
posted 3/03/08 @ 10:57 AM EST
It is ironic that Duke lawyers are now trying to shut down the www.dukelawsuit.com website, while the Duke administration still maintains ITS OWN WEBSITE on the lacrosse incident, including links to many slanderous allegations since proven false. (Continued…)
heartsurgeon
posted 3/03/08 @ 11:23 AM EST
yep, everyone is lawyered up.
old saying, when the facts are on your side, argue the facts.
when the facts are not on your side, argue the law.
the University is spending my money (tuition, which is apparently increasing 5% next year, no doubt to pay the legal bills), to try and wear down the opposition. (Continued…)
Mike
posted 3/03/08 @ 11:53 AM EST
Where was the motion to take down the North Carolina NAACP web site which was filled with lies about Duke's students? There list of 82 crimes and torts committed by the lacrosse team, were lies, but Duke did not seem concerned that this might taint the jury pool. (Continued…)
Post a Comment