Standard 17
| Publication year | 2006 |
| Pages | 8 |
| Citation | Vol. 19 No. 3 Pg. 8 |
Vol. 19, No. 3 - #8. Standard 17
Utah Bar Journal
Volume 19, No. 3
May/June 2006
Volume 19, No. 3
May/June 2006
Standard 17
by Scott Daniels
One area of litigation practice which frequently gives rise
to unprofessional behavior is discovery. Standards 17, 18 and
19 seek to address the problems in this area
Standard 17 addresses, among other things, the practice of
attempting to wear an opponent down by using discovery to
increase litigation expense. It also addresses the practice
of delaying discovery of unpleasant, but clearly
discoverable, facts
This problem was worse prior to the change in Rule 33 of both
the Utah and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which limits
the number of interrogatories which may be propounded. The
practice of initial disclosure under Rule 26 has also helped
as has the practice of meeting for a discovery conference
under Rule 26(f) in order to agree on discovery limitations
and timing. Having said that, it is obvious that there is
still a huge problem in this area, particularly with initial
disclosures which disclose almost nothing.
The overriding principle is clear here, as it is with so many
of these standards: A lawyer has a duty to represent the
client zealously. That means discovering all relevant
information and objecting to discovery which is privileged or
not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. It does not include objecting to discovery which
the court will surely eventually order disclosed. It does not
include objecting to discovery for the purpose of delay. It
does not include...
To continue reading
Request your trial