Is Rule 7-103 designed to protect a represented party from being taken advantage of by adverse counsel?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from Bobele v. Superior Court, 199 Cal.App.3d 708, 245 Cal.Rptr. 144 (Cal. App. 1988):

Rule 7-103 operates to protect a represented party from being taken advantage of by adverse counsel. The Rule "shields the opposing party not only from an attorney's approaches which are intentionally improper, but, in addition, from approaches which are well intended but misguided. The rule was designed to permit an attorney to function adequately in his proper role and to prevent the opposing attorney from impeding his performance in such role ..." (Mitton v. State Bar (1969) 71 Cal.2d 525, 534, 78 Cal.Rptr. 649, 455 P.2d 753, citing former Rule 12.)

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Try it today free of charge!

The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.

Other Questions

Is a self-represented party held to the same standards as a party who is not represented by counsel? (California, United States of America)

Can a moving party rely on the adverse party's 'convenience' as a basis of a motion to dismiss the adverse as a witness? (California, United States of America)

Does Section 170.6, subdivision (2) of the Peremptory Challenge Act require counsel to disclose the identity of the assigned judge to counsel before counsel for the moving party learns that the assigning judge has been identified? (California, United States of America)

Does Counsel's statements imply that Counsel never stated whether a witness's statement was made in connection with the matter on which counsel represented her? (California, United States of America)

If counsel discovered that the burglary had been reduced to a misdemeanor, and lodged an objection below, would counsel have discovered that counsel had discovered that Counsel had discovered it was a misdemeanor? (California, United States of America)

What is the test for finding that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as a "counsel" under the Sixth Amendment? (California, United States of America)

What is the test for reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment when an overnight guest is found to have been a party to a party in the home of the party's landlord? (California, United States of America)

Is a party who is represented by their own attorney entitled to the same procedural consideration as a plaintiff who is not represented by an attorney? (California, United States of America)

Is a prosecutor's comment that defense counsel was seeking to "distract the jury from the evidence as an attack on counsel's integrity a fair response to defense counsel's remarks? (California, United States of America)

Can an attorney representing a family business in a divorce action also act as counsel for both parties? (California, United States of America)

Is Rule 7-103 designed to protect a represented party from being taken advantage of by adverse counsel?

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Other Questions

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.

Company

Product

Resources