 |
|
| Email this article | Printer friendly page |
| For Immediate Release | |
| Feb 11, 1998 | Contact: Press Office 202-646-5172 |
|
All legal counsel, including Starr, should be held to high ethical standards to promote confidence of the public in the legal system Under the Professional Code of Professional Responsibility, once a lawyer learns that his counsel has committed perjury, or perpetrated a fraud on the court, he or she must ask the client to correct it and, if the client refuses, he or she must resign. In some states, the attorney must himself or herself correct the perjury. By now it is likely that attorneys for President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky know, or should know, whether their clients have submitted false testimony to the court at deposition or through affidavit in the Paula Jones case. In this event, they have an affirmative ethical obligation to take action to correct it. Rather than addressing their own ethical obligations, the President's and Ms. Lewinsky's lawyers have instead filed complaints against Ken Starr, who is accused of breaching grand jury secrecy rules. Certainly, this is a legitimate area of inquiry, given published reports that the independent counsel's office has leaked information to the press. However, it is also a legitimate area of inquiry for Judge Susan Webber Wright to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether false statements have been provided to her court, and to order Clinton's and Lewinsky's lawyers to compel their clients to correct them, or resign as required by the ethical code. One of the President's lawyers, Bob Bennett, has asked that the date of the Jone's trial be pushed up to March, 1998. In addition, the court previously refused to stay the case at the request of Ken Starr. Accordingly, Judge Wright should not delay addressing the issue of false testimony, as allegedly provided by Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky to her court. In this regard, Judicial Watch will not only file a motion in the public interest to address this issue, it previously moved to have the President's deposition released to the public. As Judicial Watch's motion was filed before the one later filed by some major media outlets, its pleading will likely be ruled upon first or, the two motions will be consolidated for decision. Any oppositions to Judicial Watch's motion were due yesterday, and the public interest group is procuring expedited copies for itself and other interested parties. |
|
