Comments on: For intended use only? https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/03/for-intended-use-only/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:52:23 +0000 hourly 1 By: Richard Nieporent https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/03/for-intended-use-only/comment-page-1/#comment-13736 Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:52:23 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/index.php/2007/03/for-intended-use-only/#comment-13736 Assuming the facts of the case are as stated in the newspaper article, it is clear that the lawyer knew that he was destroying evidence of a crime. While, as in the case of the RICO law, prosecutors appear to be using it beyond what it was intended for, I have no sympathy for this lawyer.

By the way, isn’t there a law that directly pertains to what he did? Can you deliberately destroy evidence of a crime as long as the police are not investigating the crime? Moreover, since a lawyer is supposed to be an officer of the court, wouldn’t he have a greater obligation to preserve the evidence?

]]>