- 146 -
information set forth in those statements and checks. Respondent
objected to petitioner’s attempt to establish through peti-
tioner’s documents that respondent conceded prior to the further
trial that petitioner had substantiated the total amounts of
expenses relating to the Sanchez Street property that were paid
during 1991 and 1992, respectively. As grounds for that objec-
tion, respondent’s counsel indicated that any such attempt would
prejudice respondent. That was because, in order to refute
petitioner’s position that respondent’s counsel made such a
concession at the meeting in question, respondent’s counsel would
have to testify at the further trial and consequently would be
prohibited under the applicable rules of professional responsi-
bility, see Rule 24(g), from representing respondent at the
further trial, thereby leaving respondent with no counsel to
represent respondent at that further trial.
The Court did not admit petitioner’s documents into the
record because (1) in violation of the Court’s March 31, 2000
Order, petitioner did not provide those documents to respondent
on or before July 20, 2000;102 (2) the Court found that petitioner
had not shown good cause for that violation of the Court’s March
31, 2000 Order; and (3) the Court found that admitting peti-
tioner’s documents into the record would cause substantial
prejudice to respondent.
Assuming arguendo that the Court had admitted petitioner’s
102Petitioner first provided those documents to respondent on
or about Aug. 17, 2000.
Page: Previous 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011