Top 10 lessons for litigating against the U.S. government

, The National Law Journal

   | 1 Comments

Know your adversary — its strengths and vulnerabilities, its practices and predilections.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • 30 Yr DC Litigator

    "Most" courts "insist" that government attorneys comply with the rules?

    That has not been my experience with DC federal judges who (with few exceptions) are loathe to sanction DOJ attorneys, many of whom are (or work for) their friends and former colleagues. Indeed, they go out of their way to avoid mentioning government misconduct in opinions (unless, of course, the litigation is being monitored by an outside group or the media).

    It may be true that DOJ officials pay attention to sanctions rulings (when they do occur), but that's only because, once the wrongdoing is in the public domain, the government has to brace itself for potential criticism or embarrassment.

    DOJ's general policy is to ignore misconduct that remains under the radar. It doesn't matter how obvious and egregious the misconduct is or how serious the harm. Just ask anybody who's ever tried to get the Office of Professional Responsibility to do its job. It's like talking to a brick wall.



Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202583879458

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.