On a TV show I watch, a lawyer withheld evidence from Discovery, on the orders of the senior partner (who is also his father, if it matters), and locked it up in a safe deposit box. The evidence would have sunk his client – as in, likely bankrupted them and possibly (probably) exposed them to billions in civil action if it had come to light.
In the show, he fears getting disbarred and going to jail, which I imagine would happen to a lawyer in such a situation IRL. But what kind of time is he looking at? For a white-collar crime such as this, and the mitigating factor that he was acting on orders (yes, I know “I was just following orders” didn’t work at Nuremberg) from his superiors, he’d probably facing … I dunno, six months? And maybe a fine in the range of half a million? And lifetime disbarment, of course.
I presume (don’t watch the same show) that this was a civil case? What would the lawyer be charged with? Perjury, if he swears in a court document “I gave you all the evidence you asked for” and lies? Whoever helped him or suggested it I assume being equally guilty.
Obviously if it’s a criminal case, obstruction of justice. Then whoever counselled him to commit such an action would also be guilty.
As always, the answer to the question will depend on the law in the jurisdiction in question.
For example, if this were to occur in Canada, it could well be obstruction of justice, which is not limited to criminal cases:
Since the individual is intentionally concealing evidence, contrary to the law relating to civil disclosure, I would think there would be a good argument for obstruction, but don’t quote me on it.
(Sidenote: see the reference to subsection (1)? That’s a different way to commit obstruction in Canada: by taking money as a bail bondsman.)
I don’t know what show it is we’re talking about. But I’m curious what the long term plan is in a scenario like this.
Is the lawyers thinking that the hidden evidence will never come to light so nobody will ever know it existed? Or are they figuring that it will eventually be revealed at some point after the trial is over but nobody will know that they hid it away back during the trial? Or are the figuring that the evidence and their role in hiding it will eventually be revealed but it will be in the future and nobody will care by that point so the consequences will be minimal? Or are they just thinking that hiding this evidence is what matters now and they don’t have a long term plan?
Of course, not knowing the plot - even if discovered later, would it be obvious it was known and concealed before the discovery and trial?
If someone discovers something requested, before the trial but after discovery, I assume they are obliged to notify the other side? What about after the trial? Can the otherside re-file the case?
It’s implied that discovery would have asked for “all studies done on the dangers of product X” so the lawyer having a document titled “Damning Study Results on X” in his safety deposit box would be pretty suspicious.