Probably the most infamous example of vituperative speech and abuse during discovery is the statements, threats, and insults made by a well known Houston plaintiffs’ lawyer in the high-profile case of Paramount Communications Inc. v. QVC Network Inc. In an addendum to its opinion on the merits of the case, the Delaware Supreme Court, raising the issue sua sponte “as part of [its] exclusive supervisory responsibility to regulate and enforce appropriate conduct of lawyers appearing in Delaware proceedings,” scolded the Texas attorney for “an astonishing lack of professionalism and civility that is worthy of special note.”

The attorney, who was neither a member of the Delaware bar nor admitted pro hac vice, personally represented one of the directors of Paramount, who was a witness in a deposition that took place in Texas. As noted by the Delaware Supreme Court, depositions are the “factual battleground” where much of the litigation actually occurs. As depositions are the device for revealing and challenging all of the factual allegations central to the case, much injustice can result from the abuse of depositions. There are several examples of the criticized attorney’s abusive and unprofessional conduct throughout the deposition.

First, the attorney attempted to obstruct his adversary’s ability to question the witness and peppered his attacks with obscenities and personal insults. When the witness was asked a question, the examining attorney was told that the attorney was going to “shut it down if [he] didn’t go on to [the] next question.” The attorney at issue then proceeded to call the examining attorney an “asshole” and warned: “You can ask some questions but get off of that. I’m tired of you. You could gag a maggot off a meat wagon.” After the attorneys went back and forth, the attorney told his opponent to “shut up,” and that the deposition was going to end in one hour, “period.” He attacked his adversary’s skills, commenting that he had “no concept” of what he was doing. He eventually admonished the examining attorney not to question the witness further: “Don’t even talk with this witness.” Such abusive behavior was not new for this attorney, who once shoved another attorney into the wall outside a courtroom.

The Delaware Supreme Court, viewing the Houston attorney’s behavior as “outrageous and unacceptable” and with “gravity and revulsion,” found that he “abused the privilege of representing a witness in a Delaware proceeding” by “improperly direct[ing] the witness not to answer certain questions,” being “extraordinarily rude, uncivil and vulgar,” and “obstruct[ing] the ability of the questioner to elicit testimony to assist the Court in this matter.” Since he was not a member of the Delaware bar and was not admitted pro hac vice, he was not subject to Delaware disciplinary rules or Delaware’s rules of conduct. Left without a clear remedy, the court invited the scolded attorney to voluntarily appear before it to explain his conduct and to show cause why his conduct should not be considered as a bar to any future appearance by him in a Delaware proceeding. He responded in the press with vulgarities and insults, stating, “I’d rather has [sic] a nose on my ass than go to Delaware for any reason,” since, he believes, the Delaware Supreme Court has animosity for “exceptional lawyers” like himself.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5524255&forum_id=2...id#47629732)