Disciplinary Counsel’s Response to Discovery Demands Is “Absurd”
Tuesday, March 27th, 2007This is a follow-up to the Mar. 25, 2007 post: “Disciplinary Counsel Widman, Hearing Chairman Tinnin: Masters at Double-Speak In Denying Discovery”.
Deputy Disciplinary Counsel Joel L. Widman has resisted all demands for discovery from Attorney Stuart L. Stein, whom Widman has charged with numerous ethical violations. Objections to discovery demands are not unusual in court and administrative cases. What is unusual and shocking is Widman’s basis for those objections. Widman claims that since he is the Disciplinary Counsel prosecuting the case and not a “party” to the action, there is no provision in the Rules for him to respond to any discovery.
In defending the Specification of Charges brought by Widman, Stein served a Request for Discovery for permission to serve requests for admission and interrogatories, in addition to requests to produce and depositions of witnesses.
Widman Stonewalls
Widman’s response to Stein’s attempt to obtain discovery was a rank case of stonewalling. (more…)