How not to practice law: invent your own rules of evidence, then try to get your own made up evidence admitted under them

Here is an interesting story about a lawyer who was recently fined over $250,000 for trying to support a claim with a fake newspaper article.  According to the story, he sought to enter the news article into the record for “demonstrative purposes.”

Now, stop!  That's not how the rules of evidence work.  If the lawyer was trying to get a newspaper article admitted, it must have been to prove the fact that the article was in fact published -- which is not likely to happen because the other side would rather concede the point in order to avoid having the jury get access to the article so they can read it -- OR to prove what the article actually said, which would be inadmissible hearsay unless one of the exceptions applied.

So what does it mean to admit an article "for demonstrative purposes"?  Well, apparently, it meant that the lawyer wanted to "prove" what could have been written in some other alternative universe in which the news was what he wanted them to be -- because the article was a fake ...  in which case the proof should be inadmissible as being fabricated or, at best, speculation.

Any way you look at it, what the lawyer tried to do did not make sense and could be interpreted as an attempt to mislead the court or the jury.  

And then, as a bonus, the lawyer didn’t show up for the sanctions hearing.  

You can read the story (with links) here.