In re Investigation of R.F.F.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

In re Investigation of R.F.F.

814 So. 2d 547, 2002 La. LEXIS 729, 2002 WL 481292

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 28, 2002

DocketNo. 2002-OB-0751

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 814 So. 2d 547 (In re Investigation of R.F.F.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Investigation of R.F.F., 814 So. 2d 547, 2002 La. LEXIS 729, 2002 WL 481292 (La. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the course of an investigation by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) into a complaint lodged against respondent, R.F.F., by one of his clients, respondent voluntarily agreed to be interviewed by the ODC. According to respondent, the ODC asked him for permission to tape record the interview, which he granted. Several months later, the ODC served respondent with a subpoena compelling him to appear to give a sworn statement relative to the complaint under investigation. Prior to the date on which the sworn statement was scheduled, respondent, through counsel, requested that the ODC produce a copy, if one exists, of the tape recording of the prior statement. The ODC declined to produce the tape, and this application followed.

Under the circumstances of this proceeding, we find no valid reason why respondent should not be entitled to obtain from the ODC a copy of his own voluntary statement. Accordingly, the ODC is ordered to produce to respondent a copy, if one exists, of the tape recording of his prior statement.

KIMBALL, J., would deny the application. TRAYLOR, J., would deny the application.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In the course of an investigation by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) into a complaint lodged against respondent, R.F.F., by one of his clients, respondent voluntarily agreed to be interviewed by the ODC. According to respondent, the ODC asked him for permission to tape record the interview, which he granted. Several months later, the ODC served respondent with a subpoena compelling him to appear to give a sworn statement relative to the complaint under investigation. Prior to the date on which the sworn statement was scheduled, respondent, through counsel, requested that the ODC produce a copy, if one exists, of the tape recording of the prior statement. The ODC declined to produce the tape, and this application followed.

Under the circumstances of this proceeding, we find no valid reason why respondent should not be entitled to obtain from the ODC a copy of his own voluntary statement. Accordingly, the ODC is ordered to produce to respondent a copy, if one exists, of the tape recording of his prior statement.

KIMBALL, J., would deny the application. TRAYLOR, J., would deny the application.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

814 So. 2d 547, 2002 La. LEXIS 729, 2002 WL 481292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-investigation-of-rff-la-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack