The problem can arise whether the lawyer is called as a witness on behalf of the client or is called by the opposing party. Determining whether or not such a conflict exists is primarily the responsibility of the lawyer involved. If there is a conflict of interest, the lawyer must secure the client's informed consent, confirmed in writing.
If a relationship with a witness is more distant, such as a co-worker relationship, the defendant can make it a practice to talk with the other person only about matters pertaining to work.
If a relative or friend of the defendant threatens a witness or someone involved in or supporting the prosecution tries to bribe a witness, for example, both have committed witness tampering. If the defendant is involved in witness tampering committed by another person, he also can be charged with a crime.
If you are accused of or charged with intimidating or tampering with a witness, you should consult an attorney immediately for assistance and advice in addressing the charges. If you are a defendant in a criminal case, talk with your attorney about this issue and any contact you may need or want to have with witnesses involved in the case.
In that motion the plaintiff’s lawyer made serious allegations of conflict of interest as well as professional misconduct. He essentially alleged that Ross lied and committed fraud. To prepare for this motion Ross incurred expense.
Midanik also claimed that Ross violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by knowingly pleading a falsehood in the statement of defence and counterclaim. Before the motion was heard the plaintiff abandoned the motion. Ross’ client received a higher cost award because the plaintiff abandoned the motion.
Paragraph 27 provides that “Counsel should not attribute bad motives or improper conduct to opposing Counsel, except when relevant to the issues of the case and well-founded.”. Rule 28 advises that “Counsel should avoid disparaging personal remarks or acrimony toward opposing Counsel.”.
The Master found that Midanik’s correspondence was intended to demean Ross and bully him as a junior member of the bar. The statements were gratuitous and contravened the Rules of Professional Conduct. He found that Midanik’s correspondence was unprofessional, abusive and offensive.
“Especially lawyers, who can be very good at being very bad,” according to the nation’s leading expert on bullying in the legal profession, Philadelphia attorney Fran Griesing.
When it comes to reducing the chances of bumping heads with a bully lawyer — especially a bully employer for your first job as an attorney — the internet is your best friend.