Did Amber Heard File a Frivolous Counterclaim? Depp v. Heard Commentary - Are Lawyers Honest? Part 3

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 3 looks at Count 3 of Amber Heard's counterclaim, in which she alleged that Johnny Depp and Adam Waldman conspired to smear her with social media bots. The claim was thrown out within months. Can a lawyer just allege anything in a court document, no matter how conspiratorial and ridiculous? What sort of proof do they need to have before filing a claim? What makes a claim frivolous?

0:00 Intro
0:42 Reviewing Amber Heard's bot allegations
4:07 The Virginia Computer Crimes Act
5:04 Virginia RPC 3.1 - Defining Meritorious Claims and Contentions
9:01 Virginia Code - Standard for sanctions
10:45 The "reasonable inquiry" requirement
13:46 Elaine was sanctioned for inadequate inquiry, appealed, and won
15:17 Do Amber's allegations satisfy the computer crimes law?
18:02 Did Amber actually know her bot claims were unsubstantiated?
19:50 Fairfax County Judge White threw out the counterclaim
21:04 Not a single screenshot of a "death threat," Amber?
23:33 Coming up - Do the Twitter subpoenas reveal an improper purpose?