Sixty Minutes had Jennifer Griffith and Sarah Carver speaking on camera about the alleged criminal behavior of Eric Conn without mentioning that Griffith and Carver are suing Conn in federal court seeking massive qui tam damages. Shouldn't that detail have been mentioned? Shouldn't Sixty Minutes have also mentioned that the federal government usually takes over meritorious qui tam actions but decided not to take over this qui tam action, which basically means that the federal government thinks that the charges made by Griffith and Carver can't be proven?
6 comments:
I agree.
Also confusing,I am not an attorney but is this ethical behavior for an attorney OR a claimant representative?
"Steve Kroft: Out of the hundreds of people that you represented, how many of these cases involved strong cases for disability?
Jenna Fliszar: Strong cases I would say maybe 30 percent to 40 percent. And then I would say half of my cases were not deserving of disability.
Steve Kroft: How many of them ultimately ended up getting benefits?
Jenna Fliszar: Half."
I am confused as to why this attorney would boldly throw clients under the bus on national television. Wasn't she basically admitting to unethical behavior herself?
No, a person may be guilty, but the lawyer has the duty to Zealously represent the claimant. Same with disability. The Rep owes nothing to the Agency. There is no requirement for the Rep to fully disclose anything or even parts of the record they know would hurt the claimant. The system is broke...
guilty of not being disabled???? I believe the Binder & Binder folks are (disgruntled?) former EEs though that wasn't pointed out in th stroy, just as the WV folks havin a lawsuit against Mr. Conn wasn't pointed out.
So having lawsuits against Mr. Conn would change the incriminating facts how??
They just might have an axe to grind, not to mention a stake in the outcome of the ongoing lawsuit, duh.
I am an attorney, and I thought about the ethical problems, too. Yes, you have a duty to zealously represent your client. But you also have a duty to not bring frivoless or meritless claims before any court or tribunal.
The duty to the client doesn't trump your duty of candor to a tribunal or your duty to not bring actions/motions/claims that you cannot in good faith argue are meritorious.
Post a Comment