Here is a quote from
"Mississippi Lawyer" in a JD Underground comments thread on the topic "Betsy Benjaminson."
mississippilawyer (Oct 26, 2013 - 5:18 pm)
not picking at you, op, but are you so naive as to think that nearly all defense lawyers dont do the same thing? If you knew what kind of documents were withheld in a high stakes civil case, it would blow your mind away. The game is "hide the ball and catch me if you can."
I found this comment very interesting. Just someone's anonymous opinion, though.
The whole thread can be found here:
Betsy Benjaminson: Whistleblow on Law Firms
Meanwhile, the mighty judge may say, and he may think it is true that:
IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS IN THE UNITED STATES, THERE'S GREAT POWER IN THE COURT TO FORCE ANY PARTY TO PRODUCE RELEVANT MATERIAL. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW
HIGH IN OFFICE, OR STATURE THAT PERSON IS; OR HOW LARGE OR POWERFUL THE CORPORATION IS. THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO TELL ANY CORPORATION -- AND THE CORPORATION IN THIS CASE -- TO PRODUCE ITS MOST SENSITIVE MATERIAL.
Is this actually true?
While a court may think it forces production of sensitive material, do corporations really produce all of their most sensitive material?
And do corporations have an inherent right to maintain confidentiality of their produced materials despite a significant and proven risk to the public?