In this series, we'll explore the topic of honesty in the legal profession. We'll learn about ethical rules - technical and aspirational - for attorneys, and how they were followed (or not) in the Depp v. Heard trial. What was right, what was wrong, and what was downright Slimeball City? In general, do lawyers have to tell the truth? Part 4 looks at Amber Heard's subpoena to Twitter for the IP addresses of more than 200 Twitter critics. IP addresses can be used to unmask anonymous speakers, and consequently, disclosure requires a higher standard of need under the First Amendment. But Amber's lawyers didn't even tell the court that her counterclaim had been dismissed. How is this okay? 0:00 Intro 0:31 The subpoena preceded the counterclaim 1:18 What information did she demand? 2:24 Who did she target? 3:27 Amber rushed to enforce the subpoena 4:16 Amber claims no personal information is sought 5:06 Twitter says NOPE 6:24 Judge White dismisses the counterclaim 6:50 Rules prohibit using legal process to harass or intimidate 7:40 Amber doubles down on Twitter subpoena 8:36 Doesn't mention applicable law and facts 8:49 Rule requires candor to the tribunal 9:45 False statements vs. misleading by omission 10:44 Camille blasts Amber in her response 11:18 Points out law Amber didn't mention 11:44 Twitter discusses unmasking 12:17 How do the the ethics rules apply here? 13:30 Amber's supporters have used doxxing extensively 14:40 Reasons to suspect improper purposes 15:12 Coming next - legally frivolous arguments Previous series episodes: Part 1: Introduction - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C06ywpSBcbg Part 2: Aspirations - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kjSaJrXLs8 Part 3: Did Amber Heard File a Frivolous Counterclaim? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPTO__dqolA