ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Ethics Blogs -> Legal Ethics Forum

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Ethics

: Legal Ethics Forum

Supreme Court of California tells lawyers to limit their evidentiary objections in summary judgment practice

ADVERTISEMENTS

If an evidentiary objection has merit, but isn't critical to the motion at hand, should an ethical lawyer decline to raise the objection, out of a duty to the court, the opponent, and the system?

In the course of rendering its much-awaited decision in the Google age discrimination case (Reid v. Google), the Supreme Court of California wrestled with the fact that the trial court hadn't ruled on evidentiary objections.  Trial courts are quite busy and in the course of summary judgment motions are flooded with countless objections to evidence.  So the trial courts often finesse the objections.  The Supreme Court declared that courts will be ruling on those objections, so the court also warned lawyers (emphasis added):

We recognize that it has become common practice for litigants to flood the trial courts with inconsequential written evidentiary objections, without focusing on those that are critical.  Trial courts are often faced with ?innumerable objections commonly thrown up by the parties as part of the all-out artillery exchange that summary judgment has become.?  (Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 686, 711-712.)  Indeed, the Biljac procedure itself was designed to ease the extreme burden on trial courts when all ?too often? ?litigants file blunderbuss objections to virtually every item of evidence submitted.?  [cites omitted]  To counter that disturbing trend, we encourage parties to raise only meritorious objections to items of evidence that are legitimately in dispute and pertinent to the disposition of the summary judgment motion.  In other words, litigants should focus on the objections that really count.  Otherwise, they may face informal reprimands or formal sanctions for engaging in abusive practices.  At the very least, at the summary judgment hearing, the parties ? with the trial court?s encouragement ? should specify the evidentiary objections they consider important, so that the court can focus its rulings on evidentiary matters that are critical in resolving the summary judgment motion.   

Full post as published by Legal Ethics Forum on August 06, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0141 secs (new cache)