Have Questions? Contact Us.
Since its inception, NYCLA has been at the forefront of most legal debates in the country. We have provided legal education for more than 40 years.
ETHICS OPINION 309-1933
ETHICS OPINION 309
NUMBER 309 1933
Question. In an action on behalf of an infant three years of age, for injuries sustained by falling off a porch owned by the defendant, due to the alleged negligence of the defendant, where there is no eye witness known to the plaintiff’s attorney, and thereafter when the case came to trial, the infant’s case was dismissed on motion of the defendant’s attorney on the ground that the infant plaintiff was unable to make out a sufficient case of circumstantial evidence. During the presentation of the plaintiff’s case, said attorney for the defendant had an eye witness to said accident actually present in court, and did not mention said fact, either to the plaintiff’s attorney or to the Court, and kept the Court in ignorance of the fact that a person did exist who actually saw said accident, and was present in court.
Was the failure of the defendant’s attorney to disclose said information to the Court improper professional conduct?
Answer. In the opinion of the Committee the conduct of the defendant’s attorney is not professionally improper. The fact of infancy does not call for a different reply.