EnterTheVoid Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 Can someone explain to me how lawyers reconcile their professional duties of proving their clients innocence versus the moral dilemma of defending their client when they are accused of serious crimes such as rape and murder? Explanation in simple English please.
DomainK Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 You are watching too many Hollywood films. A criminal lawyer with a moral dilemma is as rare as sightings of Halley's comet. Even the law is very clear on this: A lawyer has one and only one responsibility - to represent his client's interest (please note, not the society's interest, not the law's interest, not his own interest or his moral values) to be best of his abilities. There are laws to punish a lawyer who fails this duty (if it can be proved), but there is no law to punish a lawyer who successfully rescues his criminal client knowing fully well that he is guilty. So, you see, even the law is clear on that. However, there are lawyers that can sometimes be wise and have morals. For such lawyers, the key is to wisely select clients. Select ones that they think are not guilty. However, after signing up with the client, if the client confesses to the crime or if the lawyer is convinced that his client is indeed guilty, he has a choice of quitting the case. Such an act will leave him with a very bad reputation because no lawyer worth his salt ever abandons a client on the face of adversity, but if his morals outweigh his ambitions, he can quit and let his client have another lawyer. But he can not go to the cops or the prosecution or the media or any other soul with the truth he has learned about his ex-client, because by law, he is bound to client-attorney confidentiality privilege. If that makes him uncomfortable, it's time to look for another career.
ganeshran Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 If a lawyer knows the client is guilty and defends him on the grounds that his client didnt commit the crime, isnt he lying to the court? A witness doing the same can be tried for perjury. are lawyers exempt?
DomainK Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 If a lawyer knows the client is guilty and defends him on the grounds that his client didnt commit the crime, isnt he lying to the court? A witness doing the same can be tried for perjury. are lawyers exempt? Yes, lawyers are exempt. Notice that witnesses are supposed to be sworn to absolute truth before giving testimony, lawyers are never sworn to anything like that. A witness fibbing under oath is perjury and can result in severe punishment, however, lawyers have a lifetime pass for telling lies in a court of law.
KeyboardWarrior Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 Can someone explain to me how lawyers reconcile their professional duties of proving their clients innocence versus the moral dilemma of defending their client when they are accused of serious crimes such as rape and murder? Explanation in simple English please. Simple English: MONEY :--D
ganeshran Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 Yes' date=' lawyers are exempt. Notice that witnesses are supposed to be sworn to absolute truth before giving testimony, lawyers are never sworn to anything like that. A witness fibbing under oath is perjury and can result in severe punishment, however, lawyers have a lifetime pass for telling lies in a court of law.[/quote'] Interesting. So even if a client tells the lawyer that he actually committed the crime he is being tried for, the lawyer is not obligated to inform the court about it.
DomainK Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 Interesting. So even if a client tells the lawyer that he actually committed the crime he is being tried for' date=' the lawyer is not obligated to inform the court about it.[/quote'] No, he is not obligated to do so. On the contrary, if a lawyer even breathes a word of his client's confession to any living soul on earth, not just the court or the cops, the lawyer will not only lose his license to practice law, but will even face jail time for betraying his client's trust and confidentiality. Furthermore, if suppose a lawyer decides to sacrifice his own career and even gets ready to face jail time in order to expose his client's crime, his testimony and any information learned from him will not be permissible in a court of law as it forms a part of his client's privileged communication.
The Outsider Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 No, he is not obligated to do so. On the contrary, if a lawyer even breathes a word of his client's confession to any living soul on earth, not just the court or the cops, the lawyer will not only lose his license to practice law, but will even face jail time for betraying his client's trust and confidentiality. Furthermore, if suppose a lawyer decides to sacrifice his own career and even gets ready to face jail time in order to expose his client's crime, his testimony and any information learned from him will not be permissible in a court of law as it forms a part of his client's privileged communication. It's not so simple as far as I know - and hopefully a lawyer can comment more on it. 1. A lawyer is obligated to reveal the client's testimony to him if there is a future crime that can be prevented as a result of it. 2. A lawyer cannot bring in any witnesses or evidence in court which contradicts the confession of the client, not even the client himself ie. a lawyer cannot knowingly put up what to his knowledge is false evidence. 3. If the lawyer is in possession of any physical evidence of the crime, then the lawyer must turn it over. That's my understanding of the attorney client privilege.
DomainK Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 It's not so simple as far as I know - and hopefully a lawyer can comment more on it. 1. A lawyer is obligated to reveal the client's testimony to him if there is a future crime that can be prevented as a result of it. 2. A lawyer cannot bring in any witnesses or evidence in court which contradicts the confession of the client, not even the client himself ie. a lawyer cannot knowingly put up what to his knowledge is false evidence. 3. If the lawyer is in possession of any physical evidence of the crime, then the lawyer must turn it over. That's my understanding of the attorney client privilege. Correct. Regarding the first point, AFAIK, if a lawyer has prior information of a future crime, even if such information is obtained from a privileged communication, he is obligated to immediately inform the police. I don't think he is obligated to reveal the source of the information though. And yes, a lawyer is free to fib, but is not free to either present falsified evidence and is not allowed to withhold any evidence related to the crime (in his knowledge). And yes, a lawyer can not ask any witness or his own client to commit perjury (reason why criminal lawyers hesitate to put their clients on the witness stand.) Among other technical exceptions: 4. Any communication between a lawyer and a client in the presence of a third party (except other lawyers, paralegals and confidential secretaries working with the lawyer for the client) is not privileged. 5. A lawyer can share confidential information with his team of other lawyers, paralegals and confidential secretaries. However, all these people are also bound by the confidentiality law). 6. A lawyer can breach the confidentiality to defend himself legally against the client. Meaning, if the client sues the lawyer, the he loses his right to confidentiality of all privileged communications. (this one is complicated though). 7. A lawyer can, after the death of the client, disclose parts of privileged communication in order to protect the wishes of the now dead client. So if a man dies and leaves certain directions to his attorney, the attorney then realizes that he has to reveal some of the privileged information in order to carry out the instructions, he can do so. There are other technical exceptions as well. May be Mariyam can elaborate.
Recommended Posts