 Navigating the Investigation Quagmire at Messing and PatriarcaGerard Clark
Suffolk University Law School Faculty Publications from Suffolk University Law School Abstract: In 2002, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has confronted the difficult and controversial question of the propriety of a lawyer's factual investigations into an institutional adversary on three separate occasions. In March, the Court issued its opinion in Messing, in June it revised Comment 2 to Rule 4.2 and in November it decided the Patriarca case. The answer to the questions presented on each of these occassions, ones presented to lawyers every day, are more than a narrow interpretation of Rule 4.2 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct ("MPRC")1, but broad statements both about how lawyers inform themselves about their clients' problems, and also about corporate privilege and accountability. The authorities and precedent are in disarray and the issue had been the subject of a decade-long controversy between the American Bar Association and the United States Department of Justice. The oral arguments in the two cases attracted overflow crowds, mostly of lawyers and the both cases generated numerous amici briefs. Keywords: Legal Ethics; Professional Responsibility; Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bep:suffac:suffolk_fp-1010 Access Statistics for this paper More papers in Suffolk University Law School Faculty Publications from Suffolk University Law School |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.