![]()
REPLY TO [DOC 195] SHERMAN RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE - Page 8
attention of the court.’[31] Indeed ‘a District Court is obliged to take measures
against unethical conduct occurring in connection with any proceeding before it.’ ”.
McCuin references and relies upon two key cases that condemn the position
taken by Mr. Sherman. The first is Musicus v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 621 F.2d
742 (5th Cir. 1980), which holds:
A district court is obliged to take measures against unethical conduct
occurring in connection with any proceeding before it. Woods v.
Covington County Bank, 537 F.2d 804, 810 (5th Cir. 1976); Sanders
v. Russell, 401 F.2d 241, 246 (5th Cir. 1968). See generally E. F.
Hutton & Co. v. Brown, 305 F.Supp. 371, 376-77 (S.D. Tex.1969). A
motion to disqualify counsel is the proper method for a party-litigant
to bring the issues of conflict of interest or breach of ethical duties to
the attention of the court. Id. at 376.”
The second is Bottaro v. Hatton Associates, 680 F. 2d 895 (2nd Cir. 1982) holding:
DR5-102(A) serves the threefold purpose of avoiding:
1) a situation in which "the public might think that the lawyer [as
witness] is distorting the truth for the sake of the client,"
2) the possibility that the lawyer will enhance his or her credibility as
an advocate by virtue of having taken an oath as a witness, and
3) the "unfair" and "difficult" situation which arises when an
opposing counsel must cross-examine a lawyer-adversary and
impeach his or her credibility.
(emphasis)
USCA5 4074