Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fact is as messed up as this situation is, if lawyers weren't protected from sharing confidences of their clients the whole system would fall apart. We need lawyers just as much as any other skilled profession.
On what grounds? Following their professional and ethical obligations?
Oh, my bad, I must have misread it....*reading again*...Nope, sure didn't. They allowed someone to go to prison for something they knew for fact that their client committed. The guy was already in prison, and from the sounds of it, died there.
I guess lawyers have a different sense of decency and a different book of ethics they follow.
Of course we *need* lawyers, but to allow another man to take the fall for it...Well, I just don't know how the hell you could live with yourself. I seriously don't.
Oh, my bad, I must have misread it....*reading again*...Nope, sure didn't. They allowed someone to go to prison for something they knew for fact that their client committed. The guy was already in prison, and from the sounds of it, died there.
I guess lawyers have a different sense of decency and a different book of ethics they follow.
Of course we *need* lawyers, but to allow another man to take the fall for it...Well, I just don't know how the hell you could live with yourself. I seriously don't.
I wish you could have sat in on one single session of my Professional Responsibility class because you obviously have no idea how fraught with ethical dilemmas the practice of law is. It's a constant balancing act between the rights and interests of several parties, some of whom aren't even involved in the litigation or dispute at hand. Before I can get my law license, I will have to take a separate exam besides the bar exam to test my ability to walk that line.
Lawyers walk a tightrope constantly, and sometimes they are put in situations where they risk legal and professional sanctions no matter which decision they make. Most people wouldn't be able to handle the kind of responsibility that is placed on a lawyer's shoulders on a daily basis as a necessity of practicing their craft. Some of those dilemmas are agonizing. There's a reason why alcohol and drug abuse is astronomical in the legal profession. It's naive to believe there are or even can be tidy resolutions and outcomes that can satisfy everybody's rights all the time. The system is necessarily one of compromises; by definition it is not perfect and it never will be.
Oh, my bad, I must have misread it....*reading again*...Nope, sure didn't. They allowed someone to go to prison for something they knew for fact that their client committed. The guy was already in prison, and from the sounds of it, died there.
I guess lawyers have a different sense of decency and a different book of ethics they follow.
Of course we *need* lawyers, but to allow another man to take the fall for it...Well, I just don't know how the hell you could live with yourself. I seriously don't.
Lawyers are literally held to different standards and regulations than any other member of society - there are certain actions that they are not allowed to take that any "normal" member of society could. Just as a doctor cannot go around spreading information about your medical history (even if it may impact someone else), a lawyer has an obligation - legally, ethically and professionally - to hold their client's information in confidence unless the client waives his or her attorney-client privilege (which didn't happen in this instance). That privilege is the CLIENT'S privilege, not the attorney's. This isn't counting the fact that even if the attorneys in this case had come forward to reveal their client's admission without a client waiver, it would not have been admissible in court. This would have subsequently jeapoardized the validity of the signed affidavit that has now come to light as a result of the client's death, which would have meant that the person now in prison would not have even had that to rely upon. The point is that even if the lawyers had come forward 20 years ago, it would not have changed a single thing - that information could not be used. This is certainly a difficult and gut-wrenching situation, but the rules regarding attorney-client privilege are the bedrock of our legal system for an extremely good reason.
Lawyers are literally held to different standards and regulations than any other member of society - there are certain actions that they are not allowed to take that any "normal" member of society could. Just as a doctor cannot go around spreading information about your medical history (even if it may impact someone else), a lawyer has an obligation - legally, ethically and professionally - to hold their client's information in confidence unless the client waives his or her attorney-client privilege (which didn't happen in this instance). That privilege is the CLIENT'S privilege, not the attorney's. This isn't counting the fact that even if the attorneys in this case had come forward to reveal their client's admission without a client waiver, it would not have been admissible in court. This would have subsequently jeapoardized the validity of the signed affidavit that has now come to light as a result of the client's death, which would have meant that the person now in prison would not have even had that to rely upon. The point is that even if the lawyers had come forward 20 years ago, it would not have changed a single thing - that information could not be used. This is certainly a difficult and gut-wrenching situation, but the rules regarding attorney-client privilege are the bedrock of our legal system for an extremely good reason.
Small point of argument here: Their client did wave attorney-client privilege, though effective only after his death. It came to light because of this waiver, not because of his death. Common law and current case law generally holds that attorney-client privilege survives the death of the client.
So in other words, despite the layman's view of these lawyers as unethical scumbags, they actually went out of their way to help this man by securing a waiver of privilege from their client. If they were the cold heartless pricks that so many people have portrayed them as, they wouldn't have bothered.
I wish you could have sat in on one single session of my Professional Responsibility class because you obviously have no idea how fraught with ethical dilemmas the practice of law is. It's a constant balancing act between the rights and interests of several parties, some of whom aren't even involved in the litigation or dispute at hand. Before I can get my law license, I will have to take a separate exam besides the bar exam to test my ability to walk that line.
Lawyers walk a tightrope constantly, and sometimes they are put in situations where they risk legal and professional sanctions no matter which decision they make. Most people wouldn't be able to handle the kind of responsibility that is placed on a lawyer's shoulders on a daily basis as a necessity of practicing their craft. Some of those dilemmas are agonizing. There's a reason why alcohol and drug abuse is astronomical in the legal profession. It's naive to believe there are or even can be tidy resolutions and outcomes that can satisfy everybody's rights all the time. The system is necessarily one of compromises; by definition it is not perfect and it never will be.
I have put a lot of thought in to this...well, not a lot, but some....And it is quite the dilemma. Obviously it is the attorney's responsibility to protect his client...no matter how many of us may dislike that..but as said earlier, its a job that has to be done. Me personally, I would have to know or believe beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was innocent in order for me to protect them.
It would be hard to rat out your own client...but at the same time, I would hate to know I am withholding information that is keeping an innocent man in prison for 40+ years.
The person has been released on bail After twenty years in prison they released him on bail that is horrible though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After twenty years in prison they released him on bail that is horrible though.
