The Ploy Worked—At Least For A While. But The Rhode Island Lawyer Soon Learned That His Clients Were Not Being Straight With The Jury. He Began To Worry That He Might Have An Ethical Obligation To Blow The Whistle On His Clients
Epstein Suite indexes the text; the original document lives at its official source. We don't host the original file — view it on the official release to read it in full.
View the original on the official releasePeople & organizations named in this document
Being named here is not an accusation of wrongdoing.
Document text
Text is machine OCR and may contain errors. Confirm against the original source above.
as lawyers do when their clients or witnesses are committing perjury. So the lawyer went to the Rhode Island Disciplinary Counsel—the attorney in charge of enforcing the ethical rules that govern lawyers—to obtain guidance. She referred the matter to the Rhode Island Supreme Court which issued an unprecedented opinion concluding that “the attorney had an obligation to disclose the existence of his contingent fee agreement to the [Indiana] criminal trial court.” The state’s highest court found that the agreement’s “existence might well have had a bearing upon the jury’s determination.” The Rhode Island court then directed the attorney to disclose to the Indiana court the information that the Washingtons had withheld. He did so but the Indiana courts ignored this new information
Have a question about what this document contains?
Ask the documents