Abstract

In the absence of a rule clearly requiring disclosure, a lawyer is obligated not to disclose information which is adverse to the interests of a client. However, judges should be able to expect lawyers to dislose information about procedural matters. This Article argues that Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 should be amended to require disclosure of information about procedural matters. Part I describes the events in Potter v. Eli Lilly & Co., a case involving a secret settlement related to Prozac. Part II makes the argument for a rule requiring disclosure of procedural information. Part III describes how such a rule would be applied.

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

1999

3-25-2011

Notes/Citation Information

Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 87, No. 4 (1998-99), pp. 1099-1125

Download

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.