Comments on: For intended use only? http://overlawyered.com/2007/03/for-intended-use-only/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=for-intended-use-only Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Sun, 27 May 2012 05:00:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Richard Nieporent http://overlawyered.com/2007/03/for-intended-use-only/comment-page-1/#comment-13736 Richard Nieporent Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:52:23 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/index.php/2007/03/for-intended-use-only/#comment-13736 Assuming the facts of the case are as stated in the newspaper article, it is clear that the lawyer knew that he was destroying evidence of a crime. While, as in the case of the RICO law, prosecutors appear to be using it beyond what it was intended for, I have no sympathy for this lawyer. By the way, isn’t there a law that directly pertains to what he did? Can you deliberately destroy evidence of a crime as long as the police are not investigating the crime? Moreover, since a lawyer is supposed to be an officer of the court, wouldn’t he have a greater obligation to preserve the evidence? Assuming the facts of the case are as stated in the newspaper article, it is clear that the lawyer knew that he was destroying evidence of a crime. While, as in the case of the RICO law, prosecutors appear to be using it beyond what it was intended for, I have no sympathy for this lawyer.

By the way, isn’t there a law that directly pertains to what he did? Can you deliberately destroy evidence of a crime as long as the police are not investigating the crime? Moreover, since a lawyer is supposed to be an officer of the court, wouldn’t he have a greater obligation to preserve the evidence?

]]>