Back to Network
4
Shared Docs
4
Same-Page
4 / 4
Mentions
Document Mentions (4 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
a were the defendant's denials of various sexual activities, not honest answers that would have been quite different. In part for that reason, Judge Sweet authorized the deposition at the outset. Second, the Government was not a party to the civil unsealing litigation and did not have an opportunity t
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
a were the defendant's denials of various sexual activities, not honest answers that would have been quite different. In part for that reason, Judge Sweet authorized the deposition at the outset. Second, the Government was not a party to the civil unsealing litigation and did not have an opportunity t
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
a were the defendant's denials of various sexual activities, not honest answers that would have been quite different. In part for that reason, Judge Sweet authorized the deposition at the outset. Second, the Government was not a party to the civil unsealing litigation and did not have an opportunity t
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
a were the defendant's denials of various sexual activities, not honest answers that would have been quite different. In part for that reason, Judge Sweet authorized the deposition at the outset. Second, the Government was not a party to the civil unsealing litigation and did not have an opportunity t
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 Sweet and N.Y. R.P.C. 3.7(b
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON115 w/ Sweet·4 w/ N.Y.
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON95 w/ Sweet·4 w/ N.Y.
David Boies
PERSON48 w/ Sweet·4 w/ N.Y.
Julie K. Brown
PERSON43 w/ Sweet·4 w/ N.Y.
Virginia Giuffre
PERSON43 w/ Sweet·2 w/ N.Y.
United States
LOCATION35 w/ Sweet·4 w/ N.Y.
Bradley Edwards
PERSON35 w/ Sweet·4 w/ N.Y.
JP
Jeffrey Pagliuca
PERSON28 w/ Sweet·4 w/ N.Y.
JD
Jane Doe
PERSON28 w/ Sweet·3 w/ N.Y.
MA
Martindell
PERSON27 w/ Sweet·4 w/ N.Y.
the Southern District
LOCATION27 w/ Sweet·4 w/ N.Y.
Colorado
LOCATION26 w/ Sweet·4 w/ N.Y.
Stephen Hawking
PERSON24 w/ Sweet·4 w/ N.Y.
CM
Colleen McMahon
PERSON22 w/ Sweet·4 w/ N.Y.
LP
Loretta A. Preska
PERSON21 w/ Sweet·4 w/ N.Y.
MF
Maria Farmer
PERSON19 w/ Sweet·4 w/ N.Y.
Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATION19 w/ Sweet·4 w/ N.Y.
MW
Martin Weinberg
PERSON18 w/ Sweet·4 w/ N.Y.
SD
Subpoena Duces
PERSON17 w/ Sweet·4 w/ N.Y.
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON17 w/ Sweet·4 w/ N.Y.