Back to Network
4
Shared Docs
4
Same-Page
4 / 4
Mentions
Document Mentions (4 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
understanding by a questioner and answerer," it is not fundamentally ambiguous. Id. at 375 (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Jenkins, 727 F. App'x 732, 735 (2d Cir. 2018) ("An individual of ordinary intelligence would not think that a question asking for information regarding `rea
wyer is called "on a significant issue other than on behalf of the client, and it is apparent that the testimony may be prejudicial to the client." N.Y. R.P.C. 3.7(b); see generally Murray v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173, 177-80 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussing the advocate-witness rule). 149 EFTA00100116 VII.
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
understanding by a questioner and answerer," it is not fundamentally ambiguous. Id. at 375 (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Jenkins, 727 F. App'x 732, 735 (2d Cir. 2018) ("An individual of ordinary intelligence would not think that a question asking for information regarding `rea
wyer is called "on a significant issue other than on behalf of the client, and it is apparent that the testimony may be prejudicial to the client." N.Y. R.P.C. 3.7(b); see generally Murray v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173, 177-80 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussing the advocate-witness rule). 149 EFTA00077781 VII.
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
understanding by a questioner and answerer," it is not fundamentally ambiguous. Id. at 375 (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Jenkins, 727 F. App'x 732, 735 (2d Cir. 2018) ("An individual of ordinary intelligence would not think that a question asking for information regarding `rea
wyer is called "on a significant issue other than on behalf of the client, and it is apparent that the testimony may be prejudicial to the client." N.Y. R.P.C. 3.7(b); see generally Murray v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173, 177-80 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussing the advocate-witness rule). 149 EFTA00039596 VII.
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
understanding by a questioner and answerer," it is not fundamentally ambiguous. Id. at 375 (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Jenkins, 727 F. App'x 732, 735 (2d Cir. 2018) ("An individual of ordinary intelligence would not think that a question asking for information regarding 'rea
wyer is called "on a significant issue other than on behalf of the client, and it is apparent that the testimony may be prejudicial to the client." N.Y. R.P.C. 3.7(b); see generally Murray v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173, 177-80 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussing the advocate-witness rule). 149 EFTA00103174 VII.
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (252)
Entities connected to both Jenkins and N.Y. R.P.C. 3.7(b
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON44 w/ Jenkins·4 w/ N.Y.
Julie K. Brown
PERSON27 w/ Jenkins·4 w/ N.Y.
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON26 w/ Jenkins·4 w/ N.Y.
Michael Jackson
PERSON24 w/ Jenkins·4 w/ N.Y.
United States
LOCATION24 w/ Jenkins·4 w/ N.Y.
Michigan
LOCATION23 w/ Jenkins·3 w/ N.Y.
George Mitchell
PERSON22 w/ Jenkins·4 w/ N.Y.
Chris Tucker
PERSON21 w/ Jenkins·4 w/ N.Y.
Oregon
LOCATION20 w/ Jenkins·4 w/ N.Y.
Colorado
LOCATION20 w/ Jenkins·4 w/ N.Y.
MF
Maria Farmer
PERSON19 w/ Jenkins·4 w/ N.Y.
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION19 w/ Jenkins·4 w/ N.Y.
Virginia Giuffre
PERSON20 w/ Jenkins·2 w/ N.Y.
Bill Richardson
PERSON18 w/ Jenkins·4 w/ N.Y.
the Southern District
LOCATION17 w/ Jenkins·4 w/ N.Y.
Stephen Hawking
PERSON17 w/ Jenkins·4 w/ N.Y.
North Carolina
LOCATION17 w/ Jenkins·4 w/ N.Y.
Minnesota
LOCATION17 w/ Jenkins·4 w/ N.Y.
Eric Schmidt
PERSON16 w/ Jenkins·4 w/ N.Y.
Sacramento
LOCATION16 w/ Jenkins·4 w/ N.Y.