Ethics

UPDATE:  A combination of a failure to communicate, poor e-discovery procedures, and a client who wasn't candid with outside counsel.  But no sanctions.  It's worth studying closely within firms.

It's also worth the time to compare the Magistrate Judge's inferences and conclusion in the first hearing, when the veil of confidentiality prevented the full facts from coming out, to the conclusions the second time around, when an attribution of cunning malfeasance wasn't nearly as compelling.  It brings to mind the articles by Kath Hall.

I had predicted that the too-clever-by-half strategy of "we didn't participate with the joint standards setting group" would be attributed to the in-house counsel at the client, but it seems it was attributed to non-lawyers at the client.