When is It Ethical to Impede a Trial’s Search for Truth? And the “One-Share” Judicial Recusal Rule
Stephen Gillers and Barbara Gillers analyze what lawyers can and cannot ethically do at trial to interfere with the search for truth. They then discuss the wisdom of the rule that requires a judge’s recusal if he or she and certain family members own even a single share of stock in a party.
Stephen is the Elihu Root Professor of Law and Barbara is an Adjunct Professor of Law, both at New York University School of Law.
Listen on Apple Podcasts here, Google Podcasts here, Spotify here, or Stitcher here.
Join Professor Stephen Gillers for an October 19 Ethics CLE. Register here.
Reference List for Podcast #7: When is It Ethical to Impede a Trial’s Search for Truth? And the “One-Share” Judicial Recusal Rule
United States v. Reyes, 577 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2009)
Alex Traub, A Lawyer’s Deathbed Confession About a Sensational 1975 Kidnapping, New York Times, 8/12 and 8/24, 2021.
Buried Bodies case: People v. Belge, 372 N.Y.S.2d 798 (Sup. Ct.), aff’d 376 N.Y.S.2d 771 (4th Dep’t. 1975).
Alton Logan case: 60 Minutes Broadcast, CBS News, March 2008.
Rule 3.4(e)
Rule 3.3(a)&(b)
Doe v. Federal Grievance Committee, 847 F.2d 57 (2nd Cir. 1988)
Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 781 N.E.2d 1237 (Mass. 2003)
State v. McDowell, 681 N.W.2d 500 (Wis. 2004)
Fortune v. State, 837 S.E.2d 37 (2019)
28 U.S.C. § 455
Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp, 486 U.S. 847 (1988)
