More than 20 years have now passed since U.S. District Judge Robert S. Gawthrop III of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania handed down the seminal opinion on attorney conduct during depositions in Hall v. Clifton Precision, 150 F.R.D. 525 (E.D. Pa. 1993), and while its advices and admonitions remain instructive to this day, the impact of the decision upon attorney conduct in Pennsylvania is up for debate.
The facts that underlie the decision in Hall are barely important or remarkable. During the deposition of a plaintiff by a defense attorney, the attorney for the plaintiff wanted to confer with his client during the deposition out of earshot of the attorney for the defendant on various issues. The attorney for the defendant objected, and the dispute ended up in front of the judge.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
