Lots of news from US, and this is especially significant.
The DoJ suspends a lawyer for candour to the court when answering judge’s questions.
This is important, as any lawyer has duties both to client and to the court. The system breaks down otherwise.
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-judge-hear-lawsuit-man-deported-el-salvador-error-2025-04-04/
The DoJ suspends a lawyer for candour to the court when answering judge’s questions.
This is important, as any lawyer has duties both to client and to the court. The system breaks down otherwise.
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-judge-hear-lawsuit-man-deported-el-salvador-error-2025-04-04/
Comments
DoJ should not be intimidating its own lawyers to not fulfil their duties to the court.
For if the courts don’t trust what they are being told, then they are more likely to rule against you on balanced questions, especially with injunctions and TROs.
So: both unethical and stupid.
But this micro example is particularly significant, as it shows DoJ is willing to subvert the foundations of the trial system itself.
It is an extraordinary (if unsurprising) direction from US Attorney General.
A court has immense power, and so it need to be able to rely on what it is told.
That is why witnesses swear oaths and give evidence on pain of perjury.
The duty of lawyers to not mislead court is a counterpart to the duty of witnesses to be honest to the court.
Surely we need to know DOJ reasons for any suspension? Are these lawyers engaged like barristers in UK, or employed (therefore some (any?) employment rights-even allowing for less restrictive laws).
A "not sure" response!
With an added "tbh"!