Without getting too deep into the weeds, Jones does not have the ability to withhold evidence or commit perjury (on multiple occasions) and had an obligation to turn all of that information over in discovery. He can't claim he was wronged or damaged because his attorney eventually complied with his legal requirements-and in fact he (the attorney) probably made the calculation that if he didn't, he would create a serious ethics issue for himself. Yeah, maybe there are some things in there that should have been withheld due to privilage...but relevance is not thhe same objection in discovery as it is at trial. Further, I think the disclosure by the attorney was purposeful-for multiple reasons and he made an additional decision that Jones would not be able to sue him for malpractice because he didn't abet Jones' attempts to subvert the discovery process and perjure himself. I do think there's an argument that the attorney erred by allowing Jones to take the stand knowing he would perjure himself (subornation of perjury), but he may very well have counseled Jones not to take the stand but he insisted on doing so.
= new reply since forum marked as read
