Read rules for Duke lawsuit motion
By: Jason Trumpbour
Issue date: 4/21/08 Section: Letters
Last update: 4/21/08 at 7:52 AM EST
Last update: 4/21/08 at 7:52 AM EST
In trying to make sense of Duke's recently denied motion to sanction opposing counsel in the lacrosse case lawsuits for an alleged violation of North Carolina Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6, my advice is the same as that I gave for evaluating former Durham district attorney Mike Nifong's conduct: read the rule. It is available at www.ncbar.com/rules/rpcsearch.asp Rule 3.6, together with the accompanying comments specifically permitting attorneys to describe information contained in public records such as the complaint. Rule 3.6 only applies to lawyers and not the parties themselves. Finally, note the different standards and the reasons for them for criminal and civil actions. The material posted at www.dukelawsuit.com appears carefully measured to remain within these limits and the judge had no problem finding the motion without merit. The administration's motion explicitly conceded these points. As it makes clear, the administration's true displeasure is with the allegations made in the complaint itself. The administration should therefore be looking forward to the opportunity to answer these allegations at trial.
Filing frivolous bar complaints against opposing counsel is unprofessional and the province of attorneys who allow their frustration to overcome their better judgment. It usually happens at the end of a case not the beginning. That the administration hired an attorney whose principle skill set is political infighting, not federal civil rights litigation, and chose this publicity stunt to be the keynote for its defense is truly telling about how it intends to respond to the allegations against it.
Jason Trumpbour
Trinity '89, Graduate '91, Law '91
Filing frivolous bar complaints against opposing counsel is unprofessional and the province of attorneys who allow their frustration to overcome their better judgment. It usually happens at the end of a case not the beginning. That the administration hired an attorney whose principle skill set is political infighting, not federal civil rights litigation, and chose this publicity stunt to be the keynote for its defense is truly telling about how it intends to respond to the allegations against it.
Jason Trumpbour
Trinity '89, Graduate '91, Law '91
Viewing Comments 1 - 5 of 5
roper
posted 4/21/08 @ 9:47 AM EST
"That the [Duke] administration hired an attorney whose principle skill set is political infighting, not federal civil rights litigation, and chose this publicity stunt to be the keynote for its defense is truly telling about how it intends to respond to the allegations against it. (Continued…)
Duke grad
posted 4/21/08 @ 10:01 AM EST
Very wise words from Jason Trumpbour, as usual. Brodhead should have listened more to people like J.T. who has what is best for Duke at heart.
duke alum
posted 4/21/08 @ 10:40 AM EST
You would think these high-priced lawyers have reading skills, right? Think again...
Frank (Sonny) Sorrell, '56
posted 4/21/08 @ 3:38 PM EST
Only after reading the book Until Proven Innocent do I now understand how ridiculous Duke has become under first Keohane and now Broadhead and Steel. When the lacrosse scandal hit I thought that eventually some semblance of the old Duke, even one small atom, would surface. (Continued…)
Duke Family
posted 4/22/08 @ 9:50 AM EST
thank you for the insight.I ,too, had read the rule and wondered why Duke would pursue a losing line of argument.
The best for all(and Duke and its alumns )is to have a trial after full discovery. (Continued…)
Post a Comment