We asked this morning why (1) it seemed ethical to offer into evidence an inadmissible document on the hope that opposing counsel wouldn’t object and the document would be admitted, but (2) it seemed less ethical to effect a late removal to federal court on the hope that opposing counsel wouldn’t object and the case would remain in federal court.
Our readers are plainly the strong, silent type, since only a few of you have posted comments responding to our question.
But David Bernstein took a shot at our question over at the Volokh Conspiracy, and he has commenters coming out his eyeballs.
Professor Bernstein’s “own view, putting aside the formal rules of professional conduct, is that attorneys’ first obligation should be to the integrity of the legal system, and not to their clients’ interests. Even so, I’m not sure I’d say ‘no’ to either question, given that a yes answer means that incompetent attorneys who don’t realize they are violating the rules would have an advantage over competent attorneys.”
But the commenters to Bernstein’s post are all over the lot. Thus, for an assortment of reactions to the ethics question we posed this morning, please take a look at Volokh.
And we extend a warm welcome to our new readers from the Volokh Conspiracy.