- 1
- 1 451 677
Fraksis
Приєднався 18 лют 2020
Deposition Misconduct by Attorney Witness
Deposition of Colorado Attorney Robert E. Abrams, March 12, 2018.
www.coloradosupremecourt.com/pdj/Decisions/Abrams,%20Conditional%20Admission%20of%20Misconduct,%2020PDJ004,%2004-30-20.pdf
People v. Robert E. Abrams. 20PDJ004. April 30, 2020.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties’ amended conditional admission of misconduct and suspended Robert E. Abrams (attorney registration number 37950) for one year, 90 days to be served and nine months to be stayed upon the successful completion of a two-year period of probation. The suspension took effect May 14, 2020.
Abrams committed several discrete types of misconduct in connection with his corporate representation and defense in litigation of three individuals and a corporate entity. Abrams’s continued representation of his clients, the defendants, after he was personally named as a co-defendant in the same action created a conflict of interest. He did not secure informed written consent from his clients authorizing him to continue with the representation despite the conflict.
In the same case, Abrams filed written discovery responses that violated a trial court order specifically prohibiting the parties from using ad hominem attacks, sarcastic or bombastic rhetoric, or any language that did not conform to the norms of civil discourse. Further, Abrams repeatedly disrupted his own deposition and prematurely ended the session after less than thirty minutes; the court-appointed special master then had to review the transcript, issue an order sanctioning Abrams, and personally preside over Abrams’s second deposition.
During lunch break on the second day of trial, Abrams went to opposing counsel’s office building with no legitimate reason for being in the building at that time. He rode the elevator with opposing counsel and his client (the plaintiff in the case), over objections from opposing counsel and a security guard. Abrams was disruptive to and confrontational with people in opposing counsel’s office. Based on this conduct, the trial court entered a restraining order against Abrams, listing opposing counsel as the protected party.
Finally, Abrams recklessly and falsely submitted to the court an affidavit that contained inaccurate information.
Through this conduct, Abrams violated Colo. RPC 1.7(a)(2) (a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or by the lawyer’s personal interests); Colo. RPC 3.4(c) (a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal); Colo. RPC 8.4(c) (providing that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and Colo. RPC 8.4(d) (providing that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
The case file is public per C.R.C.P. 251.31.
www.coloradosupremecourt.com/pdj/Decisions/Abrams,%20Conditional%20Admission%20of%20Misconduct,%2020PDJ004,%2004-30-20.pdf
People v. Robert E. Abrams. 20PDJ004. April 30, 2020.
The Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved the parties’ amended conditional admission of misconduct and suspended Robert E. Abrams (attorney registration number 37950) for one year, 90 days to be served and nine months to be stayed upon the successful completion of a two-year period of probation. The suspension took effect May 14, 2020.
Abrams committed several discrete types of misconduct in connection with his corporate representation and defense in litigation of three individuals and a corporate entity. Abrams’s continued representation of his clients, the defendants, after he was personally named as a co-defendant in the same action created a conflict of interest. He did not secure informed written consent from his clients authorizing him to continue with the representation despite the conflict.
In the same case, Abrams filed written discovery responses that violated a trial court order specifically prohibiting the parties from using ad hominem attacks, sarcastic or bombastic rhetoric, or any language that did not conform to the norms of civil discourse. Further, Abrams repeatedly disrupted his own deposition and prematurely ended the session after less than thirty minutes; the court-appointed special master then had to review the transcript, issue an order sanctioning Abrams, and personally preside over Abrams’s second deposition.
During lunch break on the second day of trial, Abrams went to opposing counsel’s office building with no legitimate reason for being in the building at that time. He rode the elevator with opposing counsel and his client (the plaintiff in the case), over objections from opposing counsel and a security guard. Abrams was disruptive to and confrontational with people in opposing counsel’s office. Based on this conduct, the trial court entered a restraining order against Abrams, listing opposing counsel as the protected party.
Finally, Abrams recklessly and falsely submitted to the court an affidavit that contained inaccurate information.
Through this conduct, Abrams violated Colo. RPC 1.7(a)(2) (a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or by the lawyer’s personal interests); Colo. RPC 3.4(c) (a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal); Colo. RPC 8.4(c) (providing that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and Colo. RPC 8.4(d) (providing that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
The case file is public per C.R.C.P. 251.31.
Переглядів: 1 452 264
Isnt this the same room epstein got interviewed in
Oy vey.
. I would not trust him near my dog, let alone kids.
Given how Abrams is jumping around, fidgeting, wiping his nose and gazing around the room like a madman, there's more than a better chance this fella has his weekend cocaine habit just barely under control. This man has one hell of an angry gorilla on his back... can't you see it :)
Stop laughing at my lawyer & stop harassing us
get fired up!!!
Greasy idoits getting paid for this bullshit
I like this guy. 😂🤷♂️
Bradley coopers let himself go
Asked and answered move on is my go to to any question I don’t want to answer Also, I have intimate knowledge of the BB matter…
Those are the pills they give biden (probaby) mind sharpening stone pill size.
Mr. Abrams is in his rights to speak his mind.
I think he was the bad guy in the 80’s movie Hackers
“Q is on the loser board again, which makes him tonight’s big loser…”
Objecting to form does not allow a witness to refuse to answer the question. Asking a witness the same question twice does not rise to a level of harassment at a deposition.
who drinks subway coffee
Cocaine and a law degree is a crazy mix
I hear this guy represents Cleal Watts III.
Get this guy some more cocaine.
I like my lawyers from Vermont, to the the point WASPy types.
Is he swallowing jelly beans?🫘
Is he swallowing jelly beans?🫘
I’m not sure a single question got answered today. This is a case study of human ego and vanity in full view. Extraordinary
Keeps taking handfuls of kratum and heroin.
There’s not a straight line in this entire dep.
Takes his pain medication 💊
This is the guy riding your ass in traffic 100% of the time.
I definitely don’t think this guy has ever snorted lines. What say ye??
Did he say he’s a Flemish lawyer?? An un Flemished lawyer?
The imaginary bottomless coffee
Watching pure human dirt bags
This guys is massively combative. Imagine being married to this yard 🦍
This dude looks like an asshole. 😮
Special master is this a spy movie
Questionarre must really be fat.
Better Call Saul 🤣
These vultures need to be treated like this, for always filing frivolous lawsuits against people!!!
I love this guy. If I committed an offense in Colorado, I want a shark like him. Love ya Rob!!! Adderall kept him sharp as a tack!!!
The only thing this guy is missing is a giant gold pinky ring.
Haha I just love him
Stalker Perp Attorney he's weirdo. Gotcha
There’s no coffee in that cup.
Every time I am deposed, I watch this for inspiration.
He raises HIPAA protections. He's a lawyer. He should know that HIPAA doesn't apply in this situation.
He needs a Michelle.
The lawyer asking the question is a child.
this guy slams drinks like its nothing
This guy is the lawyer equivalent of Dark Syde Phil.
As much of a douche bag this guy is the other guy asking questions is clearly trying to exasperate and taunt the guy There's clearly some conflict of interest here
I knew Suits was based on something lol