So, what is your favorite scummy lawyer argument?

[TheFutureLawyer]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/60minutes/main3914719.shtml

Yeah I remember that story. Fuck those lawyers. Seriously. Fuck them.

I just read that, and I don't get it, really. What could they have done differently? What would you have done?

I mean, even if they came forward, it wouldn't have been admissible evidence, and they would have been disbarred for nothing. It's shitty but I'm not sure what they could have done about it.

All of this.

Did you not read my response, or did you just think it was wrong?

[kalvano]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/60minutes/main3914719.shtml

Yeah I remember that story. Fuck those lawyers. Seriously. Fuck them.

I just read that, and I don't get it, really. What could they have done differently? What would you have done?

I mean, even if they came forward, it wouldn't have been admissible evidence, and they would have been disbarred for nothing. It's shitty but I'm not sure what they could have done about it.

It wouldn't have been admissible against the murderer, but the guy who was convicted would have been set free. They could have tried to talk to the prosecutor. They should have done something to get that guy freed as soon as he was convicted (if not before then). And if the rules for lawyers say that they should be disbarred for extraordinary shit like that, then that shit is fucked. But even if it cost them their jobs as lawyers (which it obviously shouldn't), they should have gotten that guy free.

Aren't lawyers required to tell the police or whatever when their client confesses to them ongoing or future criminal activity? (I think I heard that somewhere, can anyone confirm that?) If a client were to tell a lawyer of a person they had kidnapped and planned on holding for the rest of their life, wouldn't the lawyer have to report that? The same principle should apply here.

Are you planning on being a lawyer? If so, you should perhaps rethink that.

They couldn't say anything, and even if they did, nothing would happen except they lose their jobs. If the guy has already been convicted, then there must be some reason to overturn his conviction. But if those lawyers had come forward, then what they said would not have admissible, and thus they wouldn't have a basis for overturning the conviction.

People are going to confess bad, bad things to you at some point, and you'll still have to continue representing them, even if they are the most morally repugnant person you've ever met. You can't tell people things they've told you as a client to a lawyer. Violating attorney-client privilege is a surefire way to end your legal career right then and there.

[TheFutureLawyer]

It wouldn't have been admissible against the murderer, but the guy who was convicted would have been set free. They could have tried to talk to the prosecutor. They should have done something to get that guy freed as soon as he was convicted (if not before then). And if the rules for lawyers say that they should be disbarred for extraordinary shit like that, then that shit is fucked. But even if it cost them their jobs as lawyers (which it obviously shouldn't), they should have gotten that guy free.

Aren't lawyers required to tell the police or whatever when their client confesses to them ongoing or future criminal activity? (I think I heard that somewhere, can anyone confirm that?) If a client were to tell a lawyer of a person they had kidnapped and planned on holding for the rest of their life, wouldn't the lawyer have to report that? The same principle should apply here.

Are you planning on being a lawyer? If so, you should perhaps rethink that.

They couldn't say anything, and even if they did, nothing would happen except they lose their jobs. If the guy has already been convicted, then there must be some reason to overturn his conviction. But if those lawyers had come forward, then what they said would not have admissible, and thus they wouldn't have a basis for overturning the conviction.

People are going to confess bad, bad things to you at some point, and you'll still have to continue representing them, even if they are the most morally repugnant person you've ever met. You can't tell people things they've told you as a client to a lawyer. Violating attorney-client privilege is a surefire way to end your legal career right then and there.

I tried to look up exceptions to the attorney client privilege, and this was the closest I came for what I was thinking about:

NEW YORK: A client's intent to commit a crime is not a protected confidence or secret for the purposes of the attorney-client privilege. N.Y.Ct.Rules, § 1200.19. People v. DePallo, 96 N.Y.2d 437, 754 N.E.2d 751, 729 N.Y.S.2d 649 (N.Y. 2001).

As to the bold, are you sure about that? I can see it not being admissible evidence against the client, but how could it not be admissible evidence for the guy in prison? There's no way that the guy doesn't go free if those lawyers talked. Even if it takes a governor's pardon / revolt by the people.

[kalvano]

A governor's pardon would be the only way. After those two lawyers ruined their careers. But a court can't just overturn a jury's verdict because whoopsie-daisy!

But you need to think about this...what are you, as a lawyer, going to do when you find out some heinous crap about a client, and you not only have to keep representing him, but have to do so with the knowledge that you are trying to fuck over a pretty decent human being? It may not happen, but if it does, you can't go around telling everyone.

Your job is to represent your client's best interests. In their case, it would not have been in their client's best interest to get a murder rap hung on him.

The world isn't always fair or right or just, and the legal system, particularly criminal law, isn't always perfect or even good.

[TheFutureLawyer]

A governor's pardon would be the only way. After those two lawyers ruined their careers. But a court can't just overturn a jury's verdict because whoopsie-daisy!

But you need to think about this...what are you, as a lawyer, going to do when you find out some heinous crap about a client, and you not only have to keep representing him, but have to do so with the knowledge that you are trying to fuck over a pretty decent human being? It may not happen, but if it does, you can't go around telling everyone.

Your job is to represent your client's best interests. In their case, it would not have been in their client's best interest to get a murder rap hung on him.

The world isn't always fair or right or just, and the legal system, particularly criminal law, isn't always perfect or even good.

This response is kind of lulzy to be honest. Weren't you just saying how the evidence wouldn't be admissible? So the client wouldn't exactly get a noose around their neck, would they? And do you have nothing to say to the exception I was talking about?

And this: "But a court can't just overturn a jury's verdict because whoopsie-daisy!" Umm, I think there might be more of just a whoopsie-daisy going on. Like, I dunno, a person's freedom. I'm pretty sure court's have the power to free a person they know to be innocent.

[TheFriendlyBarber]

Are you planning on being a lawyer? If so, you should perhaps rethink that.

They couldn't say anything, and even if they did, nothing would happen except they lose their jobs. If the guy has already been convicted, then there must be some reason to overturn his conviction. But if those lawyers had come forward, then what they said would not have admissible, and thus they wouldn't have a basis for overturning the conviction.

People are going to confess bad, bad things to you at some point, and you'll still have to continue representing them, even if they are the most morally repugnant person you've ever met. You can't tell people things they've told you as a client to a lawyer. Violating attorney-client privilege is a surefire way to end your legal career right then and there.

Bullshit you do. You may have to maintain their confession(s) confidential, but you can sure as hell stop representing the bastard.

[Tanicius]

Dressler.

Ha, knew it because we read the same murder cases tonight.

[kalvano]

This response is kind of lulzy to be honest. Weren't you just saying how the evidence wouldn't be admissible? So the client wouldn't exactly get a noose around their neck, would they? And do you have nothing to say to the exception I was talking about?

And this: "But a court can't just overturn a jury's verdict because whoopsie-daisy!" Umm, I think there might be more of just a whoopsie-daisy going on. Like, I dunno, a person's freedom. I'm pretty sure court's have the power to free a person they know to be innocent.

1) A lawyer's job is to protect his client's interest. Getting him hung with a murder rap is pretty much the exact opposite of that. You think defense attorney's don't know that most of their clients are guilty? They still have to afford them the best possible defense.

2) Your exception doesn't apply, he wasn't confessing to an imminent future action, but a past crime.

3) Once you actually know something about the law, you'll realize just how much weight is given to a jury's verdict. The problem isn't what a court knows, it's what they can legally do. Can a judge put a guy in jail he knows to be guilty if a jury acquits? Then why do you assume they can just wave a magic gavel and let someone go because they think he ought to be free?

Moral outrage is rarely a good legal argument. The guy was tried and convicted according to the law. It's not as simple as waving a wand and letting him go. They have to have something to base that decision on...technical error, another person comes forward to confess, etc. But letting him go is a legal proceeding that has to follow all the rules, unless the governor steps in. And since whatever the lawyers say can't be used in court...well, hopefully by this point you get it. If not, then it seems pointless to continue.

[kalvano]

Are you planning on being a lawyer? If so, you should perhaps rethink that.

They couldn't say anything, and even if they did, nothing would happen except they lose their jobs. If the guy has already been convicted, then there must be some reason to overturn his conviction. But if those lawyers had come forward, then what they said would not have admissible, and thus they wouldn't have a basis for overturning the conviction.

People are going to confess bad, bad things to you at some point, and you'll still have to continue representing them, even if they are the most morally repugnant person you've ever met. You can't tell people things they've told you as a client to a lawyer. Violating attorney-client privilege is a surefire way to end your legal career right then and there.

Bullshit you do. You may have to maintain their confession(s) confidential, but you can sure as hell stop representing the bastard.

You can't just up and quit if, say, you're in the middle of trial.

[Lawlskool]

A governor's pardon would be the only way. After those two lawyers ruined their careers. But a court can't just overturn a jury's verdict because whoopsie-daisy!

But you need to think about this...what are you, as a lawyer, going to do when you find out some heinous crap about a client, and you not only have to keep representing him, but have to do so with the knowledge that you are trying to fuck over a pretty decent human being? It may not happen, but if it does, you can't go around telling everyone.

Your job is to represent your client's best interests. In their case, it would not have been in their client's best interest to get a murder rap hung on him.

The world isn't always fair or right or just, and the legal system, particularly criminal law, isn't always perfect or even good.

This response is kind of lulzy to be honest. Weren't you just saying how the evidence wouldn't be admissible? So the client wouldn't exactly get a noose around their neck, would they? And do you have nothing to say to the exception I was talking about?

And this: "But a court can't just overturn a jury's verdict because whoopsie-daisy!" Umm, I think there might be more of just a whoopsie-daisy going on. Like, I dunno, a person's freedom. I'm pretty sure court's have the power to free a person they know to be innocent.

The exception you speak of only allows attorneys to violate the privilege if they have a reasonable belief that their client is about to imminently harm someone. Such as, ring ring, I'm on my way to kill my wife, here's a pic of me pulling up to her work. kbye. Now the attorney can breach. In the article you guys are talking about, the client confessed to a murder that had already happened. An attorney cannot breach privilege in that case. The exception you mentioned is only for impending acts, there is a huge difference.

P.S., your post is "lulzy" considering you're a whopping month into your legal education, Mr. Smarty Pants.

[shock259]

Just like ... don't go near criminal law.

[Stanford4Me]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/60minutes/main3914719.shtml

Yeah I remember that story. Fuck those lawyers. Seriously. Fuck them.

+1

And to all of you who are indicating you would have done the same - FUCK YOU. I would rather be disbarred than know that some guy is sitting in a cell because I was too much of a pussy to talk. I don't know why this is pissing me off so much, but it is.

Edit: Also as a Lawyer, i.e. a legal researching, you better be sure as fuck I'd find an exception to the attorney-client privilege.

[TheFutureLawyer]

1) A lawyer's job is to protect his client's interest. Getting him hung with a murder rap is pretty much the exact opposite of that. You think defense attorney's don't know that most of their clients are guilty? They still have to afford them the best possible defense.

2) Your exception doesn't apply, he wasn't confessing to an imminent future action, but a past crime.

3) Once you actually know something about the law, you'll realize just how much weight is given to a jury's verdict. The problem isn't what a court knows, it's what they can legally do. Can a judge put a guy in jail he knows to be guilty if a jury acquits? Then why do you assume they can just wave a magic gavel and let someone go because they think he ought to be free?

Moral outrage is rarely a good legal argument. The guy was tried and convicted according to the law. It's not as simple as waving a wand and letting him go. They have to have something to base that decision on...technical error, another person comes forward to confess, etc. But letting him go is a legal proceeding that has to follow all the rules, unless the governor steps in. And since whatever the lawyers say can't be used in court...well, hopefully by this point you get it. If not, then it seems pointless to continue.

1) Again, maybe the evidence doesn't go to convict your client? Maybe it's protected there, like you say it is?
2) Hypo: client tells you about how he kidnapped someone and is holding them in their basement, and intends to hold them their for life. Doesn't that count? Shouldn't it?
3) Big difference between convicting someone on unallowed evidence and freeing someone on evidence that would be unallowed in a different case.

Don't courts free people that are exonerated by DNA evidence?

Just like ... don't go near criminal law.

Because shit like this happens to even one in a million criminal defense lawyers

[kalvano]

1) Again, maybe the evidence doesn't go to convict your client? Maybe it's protected there, like you say it is?
2) Hypo: client tells you about how he kidnapped someone and is holding them in their basement, and intends to hold them their for life. Doesn't that count? Shouldn't it?
3) Big difference between convicting someone on unallowed evidence and freeing someone on evidence that would be unallowed in a different case.

Don't courts free people that are exonerated by DNA evidence?

1) Fucks sake, it doesn't matter whether the guy is convicted or what is or is not admissible. Trying to get a murder rap pinned on your client is, by definition, not acting in his best interests. There's no getting around that.

2) That's an ongoing or future crime. You have to report that. Hopefully, you can draw a distinction between your hypo and the real-life case.

3) Do you even know what you're saying? I feel fairly confident you're just typing random sentences in the hopes that they make sense. They "evidence" of the attorney's testimony wouldn't be allowed in any sort of trial, be it the murder trial or an appeal of the guys conviction. If the only evidence he didn't do it is the acutal murderer's confession to his attorneys and that evidence is not admissible, then what do you suppose the legal argument will be? "Your Honors, we know the guy is innocent, we just can't tell you why. But trust us, he didn't do it."

The same thing applies to DNA evidence...that's a legally-admissible finding that the appellate unit of the PD's office can use to have a conviction overturned. Notice the key words "legally admissible" there.

[TheFutureLawyer]

1) Fucks sake, it doesn't matter whether the guy is convicted or what is or is not admissible. Trying to get a murder rap pinned on your client is, by definition, not acting in his best interests. There's no getting around that.

2) That's an ongoing or future crime. You have to report that. Hopefully, you can draw a distinction between your hypo and the real-life case.

3) Do you even know what you're saying? I feel fairly confident you're just typing random sentences in the hopes that they make sense. They "evidence" of the attorney's testimony wouldn't be allowed in any sort of trial, be it the murder trial or an appeal of the guys conviction. If the only evidence he didn't do it is the acutal murderer's confession to his attorneys and that evidence is not admissible, then what do you suppose the legal argument will be? "Your Honors, we know the guy is innocent, we just can't tell you why. But trust us, he didn't do it."

The same thing applies to DNA evidence...that's a legally-admissible finding that the appellate unit of the PD's office can use to have a conviction overturned. Notice the key words "legally admissible" there.

1) Obviously you don't ALWAYS have to do what's best for your client. Case in point: the exception when a client calls and says he's about to kill someone. Why is the lawyer required to tell the police when the client does this? Wouldn't that reason apply in our case as well?

2) While not a crime per se, the convicted man is being wrongfully imprisoned. I hope you can see that the result is similar as my hypo: the people being imprisoned are still being held wrongly, even if the in one case the people holding the imprisoned person think they are right to do so.

3) I'm thinking you're wrong. Can anyone else confirm this? The way I understand it, evidence can be inadmissible in one case but not so in another. So, it would be wrong to convict the client based on the evidence, but if evidence comes out that proves someone is innocent the guy would be set free. I mean, that has to be true, right? The reason for not allowing the evidence in the former case with the client does not apply to the second case of letting the guy free. Do you not see that?

[TheFriendlyBarber]

Are you planning on being a lawyer? If so, you should perhaps rethink that.

They couldn't say anything, and even if they did, nothing would happen except they lose their jobs. If the guy has already been convicted, then there must be some reason to overturn his conviction. But if those lawyers had come forward, then what they said would not have admissible, and thus they wouldn't have a basis for overturning the conviction.

People are going to confess bad, bad things to you at some point, and you'll still have to continue representing them, even if they are the most morally repugnant person you've ever met. You can't tell people things they've told you as a client to a lawyer. Violating attorney-client privilege is a surefire way to end your legal career right then and there.

Bullshit you do. You may have to maintain their confession(s) confidential, but you can sure as hell stop representing the bastard.

You can't just up and quit if, say, you're in the middle of trial.

Rule 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation

(a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:

(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client.

- - - - - - - -

Rule 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation

(b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:

(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement.

- - - - - - - -

Paragraph (c) A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.

[CanuckObserver]

1) Obviously you don't ALWAYS have to do what's best for your client. Case in point: the exception when a client calls and says he's about to kill someone. Why is the lawyer required to tell the police when the client does this? Wouldn't that reason apply in our case as well?

Because that is a very specific exception to attorney-client privilege, and the required test must be met before you can disclose (there is plethora of cases out there discussing what counts as imminent harm for the purposes of the exception, etc). Past crimes do not fall into this exception. At all.

And, the lawyer is NOT always "required" to tell the police even in these cases. It varies. In some jurisdictions, discretion is still given to allow disclosure in these cases. In others, there is a duty to disclose.

The duty of confidentiality is a big one that often overrides your own moral compass, and if you cannot get that, you are going to run into trouble in your legal career - even if you do not go anywhere near criminal law.

[CanuckObserver]

Rule 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation

(a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:

(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client.

We do not have this provision in my jurisdiction and so have not researched its interpretation, but I question whether "knowing your client is guilty" amounts to a physical or mental condition that materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client. Now, if said lawyer was a coke addict who could not be bothered to open any of his files, this would arguably materially impair their ability to represent. If they were suffering a mental breakdown then arguably, again, their condition would impair their ability to represent their client. In that case, you should be withdrawing representation from all clients, not just the one whose case bothers you the most.

Rule 1.16 Declining Or Terminating Representation

(b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:

(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement.

Action is not repugnant merely because it offends your own moral beliefs or sensibilities. That would mean lawyers could quit anytime the relationship is unpleasant for them (and there will be a lot of unpleasant relationships in your legal career).

The action must be pretty out there to fall under this rule.

This provision for example does not apply to providing a defense to a client who has confessed to you. Defending a client is not about "proving" their innocence, it is about showing the prosecution does not have enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and giving your client a fair & full defence. This is why we have "guilty" and "not guilty". Not "guilty" and "innocent". It is rare that a defence lawyer believes their client to be wholly innocent.

Paragraph (c) A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.

In practice, it is much easier to be fired by a client, than to withdraw as their legal representation. Withdrawing in the middle of a trial (or shortly prior to) is generally seen as very prejudicial to the client and the system as a whole, and generally a lawyer must continue representation.

[drmguy]

So what happened to the scummy arguments?

[TheFutureLawyer]

1) Obviously you don't ALWAYS have to do what's best for your client. Case in point: the exception when a client calls and says he's about to kill someone. Why is the lawyer required to tell the police when the client does this? Wouldn't that reason apply in our case as well?

Because that is a very specific exception to attorney-client privilege, and the required test must be met before you can disclose (there is plethora of cases out there discussing what counts as imminent harm for the purposes of the exception, etc). Past crimes do not fall into this exception. At all.

And, the lawyer is NOT always "required" to tell the police even in these cases. It varies. In some jurisdictions, discretion is still given to allow disclosure in these cases. In others, there is a duty to disclose.

The duty of confidentiality is a big one that often overrides your own moral compass, and if you cannot get that, you are going to run into trouble in your legal career - even if you do not go anywhere near criminal law.

As to the underlined/bold, for anyone that seems to be okay with what the lawyers did: Do you believe (A) that a person being wrongfully imprisoned by the state shouldn't count as imminent harm for the purposes of exception and that the rules are fine, or (B) do you think the rules are fucked but that what the lawyers did was right because they had to do what the rules said?

[shock259]

You can't just construe the statute that broadly because you want it to apply to this case. There's a host of other factors that go into a statutory interpretation.

And while this a dramatic example of a case may not come up that often, you are sorely mistaken if you think your common sense morals and your lawyer ethics aren't going to conflict on a regular basis in this profession. Even moreso in criminal defense. If you can't turn off the former, that may be an issue.

Attorney-client privilege goes to the heart of our adversarial system. It occasionally produces results that are less than perfect, but it's necessary. If you don't have faith in the system, why are you getting into it?

[23402385985]

Stop fucking arguing about stupid shit and post more funny/awesome/genius/disgusting but scummy lawyer arguments.

I don't give a fuck about some dude who got fucked over by the system. Let's here these scummy lawyer arguments. This is a thread to have fun in. Not to try and soapbox the shit out of an issue.

[TheFutureLawyer]

If you don't have faith in the system, why are you getting into it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aSWJVKJMNY

And as to the rest of your response, I'll take that to mean you're an option A candidate.

And something tells me that our legal system won't collapse into itself just because we edited the rules so that lawyers who knew that a person was wrongfully convicted of a crime could speak out about it for the sole purpose of getting the man released. The purpose of the law is to protect the rights of the people. There's hardly a more fundamental right than the right to not be imprisoned for something you did not do. That right trumps the right of someone to be able to tell their lawyer in confidence that they in fact committed the crime. Again, I honestly don't mind that the client wouldn't go to jail, so let that information be privileged against any potential case against him, but you don't just let a guy rot in jail for life (and like the lawyers said, they researched it and if the guy was sentenced to death, then they would have been allowed to talk, so it's a more thin line than you seem to think).

Stop fucking arguing about stupid shit and post more funny/awesome/genius/disgusting but scummy lawyer arguments.

I don't give a fuck about some dude who got fucked over by the system. Let's here these scummy lawyer arguments. This is a thread to have fun in. Not to try and soapbox the shit out of an issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aSWJVKJMNY

[23402385985]

Why does every fun thread get ruined?

[kalvano]

Someone here in small-town Texas argued that his drug-dealing client wasn't responsible because of the chemicals the city used to treat the grass, which mentally impaired his client.