Jan 28, 2019 · As indicated by the term, a leading question is one that leads a witness to an answer, by either suggesting the answer or by substituting the words of the questioning attorney for those of the witness. Many leading questions call for answers of either "yes" or "no." But not all questions that call for an answer of "yes" or "no" are leading questions (just as not all leading …
Dec 27, 2020 · You ask questions that call for yes or no answers or true or false answers. The specific questions you ask are designed to elicit certain answers. It is almost as if you are testifying by the type of questions you are asking. There are always instances where the attorney will not know an answer to a specific question.
Jul 28, 2017 · Either way, you are likely to get the answer to your question. In summation, when dealing with an attorney who instructs their witness not to answer where no privilege exists, you should follow these three easy steps: Determine whether your question is proper in under Rifkind. If you asked the witness to provide you with a comprehensive list, or to “state all facts that …
The moment you ask a question to which you do not know the answer, you are virtually guaranteed to get an answer that will surprise you and shock you. The witness will give you an explanation that will likely hurt you and your case. You're inviting the witness to tell the jury something that you don't know. That's extremely dangerous.
However, in most cases a good experienced trial attorney will never ask a question to which he first does not know the answer. As a trial attorney who is questioning a witness on cross examination, you want to make your points and show that your version of the facts are correct and that this witness is simply agreeing with you and your version ...
It is almost as if you are testifying by the type of questions you are asking. There are always instances where the attorney will not know an answer to a specific question. In that instance, the attorney would be very well advised to stay away from that subject, unless he simply did not care what the answer was.
When you cross-examine a witness at trial, you're asking very specific, pointed questions. You are asking leading questions. You do not give the witness an opportunity to explain. You ask questions that call for yes or no answers or true or false answers.
The proper procedure is to adjourn the deposition and move for protective order. You don’t assume the role of judge and instruct a witness not to answer a question at a deposition. That is a big no-no.” ( Id. at 1011.) In other words, an attorney cannot instruct their witness not to answer in the absence of privilege.
In other words, an attorney cannot instruct their witness not to answer in the absence of privilege. When facing a privilege objection, you obviously should not just take the attorney at their word and ask exactly why the information is privileged.
Under California law, you can only instruct your witness not to answer when the information sought is privileged (e.g., “attorney-client” (Evid. Code § 950-962),”work-product” (CCP §§2018.010-2018.080)). In Stewart v.
Witnesses facing questioning by a hostile prosecutor should stay calm and focus only on the questions.
Please answer a few questions to help us match you with attorneys in your area.
You don’t assume the role of judge and instruct the witness not to answer a question in a deposition.
In other words, the defense attorney simply assumes the role of judge and decides what questions their client will and will not answer. Of course, the defense attorney instructs their client not to answer any damaging questions, even where no privilege (i.e. attorney-client, etc.) applies. When this happens in my depositions, I request ...
In other words, the defense attorney simply assumes the role of judge and decides what questions their client will and will not answer. Of course, the defense attorney instructs their client not to answer any damaging questions, even where no privilege (i.e. attorney-client, etc.) applies.
Well, truth be told, neither do I. The difference between lawyer and client is that the lawyer expects it to take a long time and understands. The client typically thinks it's unjustified. So, your hard truth is that each case takes time. Be patient.
Tell the Truth. If your lawyer doubts you in the consultation, or doesn't think you have a case, while that may change over time, getting over an initial disbelief is very hard. You have to prove your case. Your attorney is not your witness. They are your advocate - but you are responsible for coming up with proof.
If you don't pay your lawyer on the day of trial, or however you have agreed to, then while he or she may be obligated by other ethical duties to do his/her best, they won't be motivated by sympathy for you, and it will show in court.
If no one can confirm that the story is true, you will at least need something external, such as a hard copy document, to prove your case. Be prepared.
Don' t forget that lawyers don't always need to take more cases. Yes, new clients are a great thing, but I don't want clients that will eat all my time and get no where fast. Your tip: keep your communication very simple and to the point.
While lawyers can certainly take your money and your time and we can file a case that will be very hard to win, if you don't care enough about your life to get a contract, the judge is not very likely to be on your side. At least, not automatically. Oral contracts are extremely hard to prove. What are the terms.
An attorney has the responsibility to provide competent representation to each client. That means that the attorney must have the legal knowledge and skill to represent the client in a particular matter and be thorough in his or her legal preparation.
If a lawyer does not fulfill those obligations then a client might be able to seek recourse for the lawyer’s behavior. Therefore, it is important for clients to understand what their lawyers’ obligations are and what they can do if those obligations are not met.
If a lawyer does not fulfill those obligations then a client might be able to seek recourse for the lawyer’s behavior.
A client, who believes that an attorney violated his or her ethical obligations, can file a disciplinary complaint against the attorney with the state bar disciplinary committee. Typically, this involves a hearing on the client’s complaint.
The board has the power to issue public or private reprimands and to temporarily or permanently revoke a person’s license to practice law in that jurisdiction. Clients also have the right to pursue legal malpractice claims in court.
Clients also have the right to pursue legal malpractice claims in court. If a client successfully proves that a lawyer was negligent or guilty of misconduct and that the client suffered monetary damages as a result then the client may recover those damages in a professional malpractice lawsuit.
In most jurisdictions, attorneys are required to take and pass a Professional Responsibility Exam prior to being admitted to the bar. Upon admittance to the bar, attorneys agree to comply with the ethical requirements of their jurisdiction. Most attorneys uphold that promise.