Yes, Heaven Forbid

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE and any statement so construed herein should be independently by the reader to his or her satisfaction:

Language of this sort appears in most states' versions of the Rules of Professional Conduct and it is decidely hostile to opposing party. This is traceable, I observe, to our "adversarial system" of justice and an attorney's duty of "zealous advocacy," which has --despite protestations to the contrary-- often been used as a license/rationale to manipulate the rules of civil procedure, employ trickery, deception, mispresentation and other tactics against the opposing party.

It's important to remember, however, that this cuts both ways. While a rules violation does not give rise to a private cause of action, exoneration from a Rules violation allegation does not mean that tortious and compensable conduct did not occur (whereas criminal conduct almost always should result in a finding of a rules violation). The converse is true --if a jury finds an attorney liable for a tort, a rule violation might not be found by the disciplinary authority.

Thus, a civil suit against an attorney should be pursued against the same standards of redressibility and immediacy (standing to sue) and the law of tort or the law of contract (whichever is applicable), as to any other person, but with [at least] one exception --the doctrine of absolute immunity, which affords opposing counsel immunity for defamatory conduct that arises in the course of litigation (pleadings, open-court statements, and the like).

THE FOREGOING IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE and any statement so construed herein should be independently by the reader to his or her satisfaction: