Opinion ID: 2602241
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Count Two Influencing Dr. Sternlof to Refrain From Testifying as an Expert Witness

Text: ¶ 10 Respondent admits what is alleged in Count Two of the complaint: that he asked Dr. Sternlof, a close, personal friend, to refrain from testifying as an expert witness for opposing counsel. Respondent stipulates he told Dr. Sternlof that if the latter did not abstain from testifying, he would present evidence affecting Dr. Sternlof's credibility as a witness and would dig up dirt about him. [14] Respondent also acknowledges that he served Dr. Sternlof with a subpoena duces tecum by which he demanded copies of all things related in any way to the doctor's alleged previous involvement in a 1980 illegal wiretapping (about which the physician had previously told respondent). [15] Five days after being served with the subpoena, Dr. Sternlof wrote a letter to respondent's opposing counsel requesting that his name be withdrawn as a witness in the case. We accept all of respondent's stipulations  and find by clear and convincing evidence  that this conduct offends ORPC Rule 3.4(f). [16]