Back to Network
4
Shared Docs
4
Same-Page
4 / 4
Mentions
Document Mentions (4 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
e whether the defendant's statements would have tipped the scales in the defamation suit or would likely have led to the discovery of evidence. See Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 771 (1988) ("It has never been the test of materiality that the misrepresentation or concealment would more likely 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
e whether the defendant's statements would have tipped the scales in the defamation suit or would likely have led to the discovery of evidence. See Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 771 (1988) ("It has never been the test of materiality that the misrepresentation or concealment would more likely 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
e whether the defendant's statements would have tipped the scales in the defamation suit or would likely have led to the discovery of evidence. See Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 771 (1988) ("It has never been the test of materiality that the misrepresentation or concealment would more likely 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
e whether the defendant's statements would have tipped the scales in the defamation suit or would likely have led to the discovery of evidence. See Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 771 (1988) ("It has never been the test of materiality that the misrepresentation or concealment would more likely 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 Kungys and N.Y. R.P.C. 3.7(b
Rivera
PERSON5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.
Adriana Ross
PERSON5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.
Stephen Hawking
PERSON5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.
Kentucky
LOCATION5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.
ST
Strohm
PERSON5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.
VI
Vilar
PERSON5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.
YL
Ying Lin
PERSON5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.
RA
R. App
PERSON5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.
OP
Orange" Prod.
PERSON5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.
PS
Palmieri v. State
PERSON5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.
RA
Rakas
PERSON5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.
RA
Rawlings
PERSON5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.
BY
Blum v. Yaretsky
PERSON5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.
AO
Albright v. Oliver
PERSON5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.
RO
Rochin
PERSON5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.
FD
Franks v. Delaware
PERSON5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.
BL
Blakney
PERSON5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.
PO
Potamitis
PERSON5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.
SJ
S.D.N.Y. Jan
PERSON5 w/ Kungys·4 w/ N.Y.