Ethics

I recently caught some grief for reporting about a Hollywood news item.  But this item is legit.  Movie star Mel Gibson has been all over the news for abusive language and perhaps physical abuse as well toward his domestic partner.  The judge in the case had some strong language for the lawyer representing the complainant in the matter, and the judge's beef relates to the ethical duty to disclose material facts to the judge when appearing ex parte.  (That is, when you appear in an adversarial hearing you may be able to tell just your side of the story, but in ex parte hearings, there is a much broader duty to disclose.) 

Model Rule 3.3(d) says, "In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse."

The judge's words:

"My question for you [i.e., the lawyer] is this. Why wasn't I told about this agreement in connection with the request for a temporary restraining order? Mr. (Stephen) Kolodny (Gibson's counsel) is exactly correct. Had I known the parties had an agreement, I may not have issued the order the way I did; and I find it very troubling that someone comes in, without notice to the other side, represents facts to me, including the fact this woman is so afraid of Mr. Gibson that she needs immediate protection, even though by -- based on her declaration, it's clear that nothing happened for a few months.



"The things that happened were so horrible and it was quite understandable to me that she finally came to the conclusion that she needed a restraining order, even though the bad stuff happened in February.



"But no one then told me there had been this intervening agreement about the child, and I'm really quite troubled by that."