""Stated otherwise," Silva wrote, "Krotoski's representation that the witness was 'traveling' was a lie.""
""Krotoski's representation that the witness was 'traveling' was a lie.""
""Krotoski writes that he has profound respect for the judicial system and the rule of law and details his prior professional experiences, which includes two clerkships, a decorated career with the Department of Justice, and other public service roles," Silva said."
""[t]he record and facts do not demonstrate an effort 'to mislead the court'... and do not support a finding of subjective bad faith.""
Judge Cristina D. Silva sharply criticized Pillsbury partner Mark Krotoski for repeated unprofessional conduct during an antitrust trial and attributed the conduct to entitlement. Krotoski repeatedly represented that an expert witness was traveling on a particular date, but the witness later testified she was running errands, prompting Silva to call the representation a lie. Silva noted additional issues, including delaying the proceedings by lackadaisically retrieving witnesses and failing to provide direct answers to direct questions. Krotoski responded that he was "saddened and shocked," denied subjective bad faith, and called it a poor choice of words while citing prior public-service experience.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]