Vanity of the Bonfires: Spoliation of Evidence

, New York Law Journal

   | 1 Comments

In his Matrimonial Practice column, Timothy M. Tippins, adjunct professor at Albany Law School, discusses the Second Department decision 'O'Loughlin v. Sweetland,' which affirmed a lower court decision that refused to impose sanctions upon a forensic custody evaluator who destroyed audiotapes of interviews she conducted in the course of her evaluation. The author writes: For those who still believe in due process, decisions of this sort send one screaming into the night.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to LexisAdvance®.

Continue to LexisAdvance®

Not a LexisAdvance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via LexisAdvance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Teresa Ombres

    Yikes, Tim! I love the Watergate quote. It sure does seem illogical to allow the destruction of the record that created the report. For a minute I thought the logic might be akin to the policy of mediators to destroy all notes except for written, signed agreements. But that is different since it is not in the context of a litigation. Mediators and clients agree that the process is confidential and none of the materials will be used in a litigation. Obviously such a principle cannot apply to a custody litigation. But it made me wonder if these forensic psychologists are destroying their evidence because they are ambivalent about their roles. On the one hand they are therapists with a clear duty of confidentiality, and on the other, court-appointed forensics where they are required to report.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202626738587

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.