Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Every divorce lawyer has been in this situation: You are taking a deposition or examining a witness on the stand. You begin to get into sensitive subject matter, such as adultery, failure to report income, wiretapping or other miscellaneous criminal activities. The other lawyer objects. We all know that the privilege against self-incrimination applies even in civil cases such as divorce. So, you are not going to get an admission into evidence.
Many practitioners do not realize, however, that they have some recourse. The law is that while the privilege applies in a civil case, it is not without effect. In fact, if you are in the right situation, you can employ the other side's use of the privilege to great advantage. For example, an appellate court in Illinois has held that a plaintiff could not invoke the privilege against self-incrimination while still maintaining the lawsuit. The trial court's dismissal of the complaint was affirmed in Galante v. Steel City National Bank of Chicago, 384 N.E.2d 57 (1978). Galante was a case of first impression in Illinois and it is instructive with respect to the cases the court reviewed from other jurisdictions. The appellate court held:
[T]hese jurisdictions have overwhelmingly rejected the contention that a plaintiff in a civil action may invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination while still maintaining the lawsuit … The federal courts which have considered this issue have also rejected a plaintiff's right to maintain a civil action while also asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege in response to a defendant's request for discovery … Although it is true that plaintiffs cannot be forced to involuntarily incriminate themselves, we do not believe they should be permitted to use the Fifth Amendment privilege as both a shield of protection and a sword of attack. Plaintiffs have forced defendants into court. It would be unjust to allow them to prosecute their cause of action and, at the same time, refuse to answer questions, the answers to which may substantially aid defendants or even establish a complete defense. 384 N.E. 2d at 61-62. (Emphasis added.)
Temporary Maintenance and Attorney's Fees
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.