Hi there, in accordance with the following Rules and the ABA rules, could you help me by answering the following questions?

Rules of reference :

Texas Rules of Court, Texas Lawyers Creed a mandate for professionalism (November 7, 1989)

Local Rule 2.2.6 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 section 6068 (f)

Of California's Business and Professions Code.

CIVILITY, CONTEMPT OF COURT, FREE SPEECH, AND PUBLICITY.

B. Problem I

Attorney E.Z. Boyette, a local sole practitioner who's been practicing in Sub- urban County for 30 years, and Samantha Tesk, a partner in a mid-sized firm in Urban City across the river, represent opposing parties in Suburban Superior Court. The trial date is 60 days off. 1. E.Z. needs an order that would shorten the normal time for hearing a motion to compel production of documents sufficiently in advance of trial to avoid close of discovery. The local court rules state that such "orders shortening time" "shall, with appropriate accompanying declaration, be presented to the Presiding Judge, and if that judge is not reasonably available, then to any Superior Court Judge." The current P.J. is a notorious stickler on procedure, and E.Z. is concerned his excuse in support of the motion for shortened time may not be sufficient. So he decides to present his motion between 9:00 and 9:15, the one time in the day when the P.J. is unavailable since he sits as Master Trial Judge during that time. Sure enough, E.Z. finds the P.J. unavailable, but does find Judge Braithwaite still in chambers. Braithwaite, never known for promptness or exacting procedure, signs the order shortening time. E.Z., having gotten his order signed, now goes to the clerk's office to calendar the motion. The clerk tells him that all motions filed this date are being set for hearing on the following Tuesday. Recalling that motions judge Hickenlooper takes a very narrow view of discovery, and further that Hickenlooper will be at a judges' weekend

retreat through Monday, E.Z. tells the deputy clerk who calendars the motion, "If you can set this on Monday, it'll make my life a whole lot easier. It's gonna be real tough on me if I gotta be here on any other day." The clerk, who is on friendly terms with E.Z. due to occasional shared coffee breaks and miscellaneous other pleasant. ries over the years, assumes that E.Z. has genuine scheduling difficulties and agrees to calendar the hearing for Monday. Braithwaite will now hear the motion. request for production of documents, while readying to leave town for a week on a 2. Judge Braithwaite grants E.Z.'s motion. E.Z. then serves Samantha with a long-planned backpacking trip. He informs Samantha of his plans, and gives her an additional week to produce the documents. Samantha, however, decides to seek a on grounds of privilege. She knows this is a "long shot," but decides to give it a try, protective order allowing her to redact, or "black out," a portion of the documents, especially since she's now angry with E.Z. Samantha now needs an order shortening time (OST) for a hearing on her motion for a protective order, but she knows that E.Z. would oppose an OST. She realizes that, with E.Z.'s opposition, the court might not grant her request, since her motion is more tactical than substantive. So, she waits two days until the first day of E.Z.'s vacation, when she calls E.Z.'s office, as required by the court's local rules, and leaves the following message with his secretary: "Will make ex parte request for OST tomorrow, Department 12 at 9:00 A.M." Samantha's request for an OST is heard and, not surprisingly, is unopposed because E.Z. is out-of-town. The hearing on the motion for the protective order is set for the day after E.Z. returns from vacation.

Questions

1. Evaluate the conduct of attorneys E.Z. and Samantha. What conduct of these lawyers do you feel is unethical? Do some of these lawyers' actions, while they may not strictly violate ethical rules, nevertheless fail to meet a reasonable standard of conduct for an attorney? Which actions, and why?

2. Consider the two scenarios in the Notes after the Freedman article below. Are these two examples ethical? Sleazy? Might they be considered both ethical and sleazy?

II. ottoans to none di spet Miles Bethea is one of the best-known plaintiffs' products liability lawyers in the state. He and his opposing counsel, the equally celebrated Michael Epstein, have been litigating the case of McVie v. Reliable Motors for the past two years. Plaintiff Doreen McVie claims the brakes on her new Reliable failed, causing her to crash into a light pole. She sustained a severe spinal injury and as a result is paralyzed below the waist. During the two months that she owned the car, she returned it to her dealer three times, complaining that the brakes felt "soft." The dealer's service mechanics checked the car each time and found nothing wrong.

The case is now in trial. Miles believes that one of his most important pieces of evi- s that as of the date Doreen bought her car, Reliable's zone service offices had brakes. Although only three of the complaints involved accidents, Miles believes that received at least 13 complaints from car owners about braking problems and "soft" these reports show that even before Doreen bought her car, Reliable was on notice that cars like hers may have had brake problems. Unfortunately for Miles, he and Doreen have drawn Judge Marcia MacAboo, a jurist with a restrictive view of evidence in products liability and punitive damages cases. Miles supports his offer to admit the complaints with several cases in which similar evidence had been received in courts in his state. On the second day of trial, when the admissibility of the complaints is argued, the following discussion takes place on the record: BETHEA: We ask now that these documents be admitted into evidence as plaintiff's Exhibit numbers 4(a) through (m). EPSTEIN: Objection, Your Honor, these reports.... THE COURT: Sustained, counsel, the objection is sustained. These docu- ments are completely irrelevant; no foundation. BETHEA: Would the Court be more specific? I.... THE COURT: I don't have to explain my ruling to your satisfaction. There will be no more said about this. BETHEA: But refusing to admit these complaints will perpetuate a false impression about auto safety. It's absurd to have dangerous.... THE COURT: Counsel! BETHEA: It makes no sense at all to....orli ainils of sub THE COURT: That's enough, and that's contempt! Two days in jail at the close of this case. Is this contempt or proper vigorous advocacy? Would this finding of contempt be affected by whether the jury was present at the time of this colloquy?

III.

Michael's investigators have learned that Doreen was in and out of three alcohol rehabilitation clinics over a five-year period ending a year before the accident. Rec- ords at the state's Motor Vehicles Bureau show that Doreen has two convictions for driving under the influence, one eight years ago, and the other 15 months before the accident. The last conviction resulted in a year's suspension of Doreen's license, which ended just 10 weeks before the accident. Doreen's case against Reliable Motors is both newsworthy and emotionally charged. Reliable is known for its "safe" yet economical cars. Local TV stations and newspapers have been following the progress of the case since Doreen filed suit two years ago.

On the fourth trial day, Doreen testifies before the jury and Michael grills her on cross-examination, including about her alcohol consumption. At the end of the day, Michael is bombarded by news people on the courthouse steps. "Look," he tells reporters, "in this case, I represent the good guys. A reasonable jury can't possibly caused her own injuries. She's a lush and shouldn't have been on the road. She took find Ms. McVie credible," he continues. "There's nothing wrong with these cars. She her life into her own hands and now she's looking for a deep pocket to pay her."

Questions likely to

1. Did Michael act within the bounds of propriety in making these statements prejudice the case or interfere with the plaintiff's ability to get a fair trial? What if to the press? How important is determining whether the statements are Michael had made these comments before trial?

2. Suppose Miles, frustrated by Judge MacAboo's adverse rulings, lashed out at her in his after-court press conference: "If she knew how to apply rules of evidence, we wouldn't be trying this case with one hand tied behind our backs and one foot stuck in cement." Is this comment proper?