4
Shared Docs
4
Same-Page
4 / 4
Mentions
asonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Rule 11 uses an objective standard. Kaplan v. DaimlerChrysler, A.G., 331 F.3d 1251, 1255 (11th Cir. 2003). The analysis is whether "a reasonable attorney in like circumstances could believe that his actions were fact
c interest in the outcome of the matter. Example I to paragraph (j): An attorney participated in preparing the Government's antitrust action against Z Company. After leaving the Government, she may not represent Z Company in a private antitrust action brought against it by X Company on the same facts invo
asonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Rule 11 uses an objective standard. Kaplan v. DaimlerChrysler, A.G., 331 F.3d 1251, 1255 (11th Cir. 2003). The analysis is whether "a reasonable attorney in like circumstances could believe that his actions were fact
c interest in the outcome of the matter. Example I to paragraph (j): An attorney participated in preparing the Government's antitrust action against Z Company. After leaving the Government, she may not represent Z Company in a private antitrust action brought against it by X Company on the same facts invo
easonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Rule 11 uses an objective standard. Kaplan v. Dainderarysler, A.G., 331 F.3d 1251, .1255 (11th Cir. 2003). The analysis is whether "a reasonable • attorney in like circumstances could believe that his actions were
ic interest in the outcome of the matter. Example l to paragraph (9: An attorney participated in preparing the Government's antitrust action against Z Company. After leaving the Government, site may not represent Z Company in a private antitrust action brought against it by X Company on the same facts inv
asonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Rule 11 uses an objective standard. Kaplan ! DaintlerChrysler, A.G., 331 F.3d 1251, .1255 (11th Cir. 2003). The analysis is whether "a reasonable • attorney in like circumstances could believe that his actions were
ic interest in the outcome of the matter. Example l to paragraph (9: An attorney participated in preparing the Government's antitrust action against Z Company. After leaving the Government, site may not represent Z Company in a private antitrust action brought against it by X Company on the same facts inv
Entities connected to both A.G. and Z Company

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON
Bradley Edwards
PERSON
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATIONthe Southern District
LOCATIONJane Doe
PERSON
United States
LOCATION
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATIONthe West Palm Beach Office
ORGANIZATION
United States Department of the Treasury
ORGANIZATIONFBI
ORGANIZATION
Kaplan
PERSONthe Palm Beach County Commission
ORGANIZATIONthe Federal Bar Association
ORGANIZATIONEnforcement's Award for Exceptional Service
ORGANIZATIONthe Treasury for Enforcement
ORGANIZATIONthe Public Integrity Section
ORGANIZATIONMeritorious Acts and Service
ORGANIZATIONNegotiations, Inc.
ORGANIZATIONINTERVENOR
ORGANIZATIONthe Eleventh Circuit
ORGANIZATION