Judges don't like it when lawyers lie to them

A federal appeals court has barred a California lawyer from appearing in federal courts in New England - and Puerto Rico - after finding he lied to a judge about what he scribbled on a legal pad to a client being deposed in a lawsuit.

The ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit means that Jeffrey Ryan of Mountain View, CA, will no longer get permission to participate in cases before courts in the circuit, where he does not normally practice. Judges normally grant this pro hac vice permission to allow local lawyers to bring in outside counsel.

At issue was a deposition of Ryan's client during her lawsuit against a Waltham company for job descrimination.

As she was being questioned by lawyers for the company, Ryan wrote something on a notepad and she appeared to look at it. The lawyers for the company questioned whether Ryan was coaching his client and demanded to see the notepad, but Ryan refused, the court reported.

Ryan told a judge in the case he had just written down the address of the courthouse he and his client had to appear in later that day, but the court reporter transcribing the deposition told a judge that while she could not read what Ryan wrote, it was more lines than would be required for an address. And Ryan told the judge he would have turned over the notepad if asked, while the transcript of the deposition showed he was asked, but refused to do so.

The most serious instances of Ryan's misconduct are compellingly supported by the court reporter's testimony that a notepad Ryan slid toward the witness had a note in addition to the courthouse address. If the court reporter was correct, then Ryan lied to the court and submitted falsified evidence during the evidentiary hearing when he denied writing a note and offered a notepad without the writing that the court reporter had seen. The court found the court reporter "wholly credible." Ryan now responds by characterizing the court reporter's testimony as "addled" and "rife with interruptions, confusion, and contradictions," but the court disagreed. ... The court reporter may have been nervous after finding herself in the unusual position of testifying, but we see no basis in the transcript of her testimony to conclude that her testimony was unreliable. ...

Ryan's account of the events and his actions during the deposition do not inspire confidence in his truthfulness. If all he had written was the court address, why not flip over the notepad and show defense counsel? Ryan's answer to this question (he would have done so if asked) only dug a deeper hole because the transcript shows he was invited to do so, and he refused. We think it important, too, that Ryan's statements to the court were not spontaneous. This was not a fleeting moment of weakness under pressure without premeditation, later recanted. Ryan had four hours between the time the deposition was suspended and the status conference during which to decide what to say to the court about what he wrote on the notepad. That he used that time in part to create a false document to present to the court certainly works against him.

Complete ruling.