BelizeBreeze
Senior Member
rules of evidence.
Work product is anything done or prepared in the scope of representation. This includes conversations.
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
"Lying" Lawyer and tape
- Thread starter carey
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
more facts
thank you for participating.
Yes the conversation was between me, lawyer AND SPOUSE. In the conference room.
The conversation was about money and what he was willing to do for free.
He is stating now that he never said that. Obviously the guy is smoking dope if he thinks he is going to get away with this. I am not talking about chicken feed here ok.
BB the case law you mentioned was in 1947 (if that was the year) about work product. Anything more recent??
OK let's clarify something. There will be no Court on this (except maybe my criminal case if I absolutely loose it and play it for him). I am not trying to admit it in Court. I just want to play it only to that guy. If he tells me to take a hike. I might want to play it to the fee dipute board.
What about the doctor/patient priviledge and the doc loosing that?? Huh??
I just want a definitive answer, if lawyers can only give you "advice" and prosecutors won't tell you what is legal or not (if they will prosecute you until after you commit the crime) AND ignornance is not an excuse to break the law than what the heck is a citizen to do. Seems to me if they don't know the law how the heck am I supposed to know it.
Hey how about this, the conversation wasn't private because, he wrote me an email stating he was afraid I wouldn't pay him, therefore any argument about it being private and not going to a collection agency or the Bar fee dispute thing would be defeated.
And because if a patient can record doctor's than clients should be able to recod lawyers.
more thoughts please...
What about the DA, should I call?
c
thank you for participating.
Yes the conversation was between me, lawyer AND SPOUSE. In the conference room.
The conversation was about money and what he was willing to do for free.
He is stating now that he never said that. Obviously the guy is smoking dope if he thinks he is going to get away with this. I am not talking about chicken feed here ok.
BB the case law you mentioned was in 1947 (if that was the year) about work product. Anything more recent??
OK let's clarify something. There will be no Court on this (except maybe my criminal case if I absolutely loose it and play it for him). I am not trying to admit it in Court. I just want to play it only to that guy. If he tells me to take a hike. I might want to play it to the fee dipute board.
What about the doctor/patient priviledge and the doc loosing that?? Huh??
In another case, an ophthalmologist who agreed to be interviewed for "Primetime Live" sued ABC under the federal wiretapping statute for videotaping consultations between the doctor and individuals posing as patients who were equipped with hidden cameras. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago (7th Cir.) rejected the doctor s wiretapping claim because the federal statute requires only one-party consent, and the undercover patients had consented to the taping. The court further held that the network did not send the testers to the doctor for the purpose of defaming the doctor, and that therefore ABC did not engage in the taping for a criminal or tortious purpose. (Desnick v. ABC)
Expectations of privacy. The other issue that courts address in evaluating these cases is whether or not the plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area where the filming took place. In Desnick, the court held that the doctor did not have such an expectation of privacy in an area where he brought his patients.
A medical testing lab in Arizona sued ABC over another "Primetime Live" segment, which focused on error rates among laboratories that analyze women s Pap smears for cancer. Producers from ABC posed as lab technicians and filmed the inside of the lab with a hidden camera. The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco (9th Cir.) dismissed the lab s privacy claims of trespass and intrusion because the public importance of the story outweighed any privacy interests the lab could claim. The undercover journalists filmed portions of the lab that were open to the public and were escorted by the lab s owners into a conference room. The court said the lab and its workers did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, because the areas filmed were open to the journalists, and none of the discussions caught on tape were of a personal nature. (Medical Laboratory Management Consultants v. ABC, Inc.)
Expectations of privacy. The other issue that courts address in evaluating these cases is whether or not the plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area where the filming took place. In Desnick, the court held that the doctor did not have such an expectation of privacy in an area where he brought his patients.
A medical testing lab in Arizona sued ABC over another "Primetime Live" segment, which focused on error rates among laboratories that analyze women s Pap smears for cancer. Producers from ABC posed as lab technicians and filmed the inside of the lab with a hidden camera. The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco (9th Cir.) dismissed the lab s privacy claims of trespass and intrusion because the public importance of the story outweighed any privacy interests the lab could claim. The undercover journalists filmed portions of the lab that were open to the public and were escorted by the lab s owners into a conference room. The court said the lab and its workers did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, because the areas filmed were open to the journalists, and none of the discussions caught on tape were of a personal nature. (Medical Laboratory Management Consultants v. ABC, Inc.)
I just want a definitive answer, if lawyers can only give you "advice" and prosecutors won't tell you what is legal or not (if they will prosecute you until after you commit the crime) AND ignornance is not an excuse to break the law than what the heck is a citizen to do. Seems to me if they don't know the law how the heck am I supposed to know it.
That's what the poster will have to prove to the court, that the conversation was not private and the attorney did not have an expectation of privacy
Hey how about this, the conversation wasn't private because, he wrote me an email stating he was afraid I wouldn't pay him, therefore any argument about it being private and not going to a collection agency or the Bar fee dispute thing would be defeated.
And because if a patient can record doctor's than clients should be able to recod lawyers.
more thoughts please...
What about the DA, should I call?
c
BelizeBreeze
Senior Member
after the last smartassed post I'm done
what?
what was smart?
I am just trying to figure this out.
wouldn't it be best in the public interest if lawyers were put on notice. that some lawyers didn't lie to their clients.
i mean i think i got the system down. he is a lawyer so he speaks the truth, i am not a lawyer so that makes me the liar. he wins. that's the drill, isn't it?
what was smart?
I am just trying to figure this out.
wouldn't it be best in the public interest if lawyers were put on notice. that some lawyers didn't lie to their clients.
i mean i think i got the system down. he is a lawyer so he speaks the truth, i am not a lawyer so that makes me the liar. he wins. that's the drill, isn't it?