Apparently the lawyer for the South Carolina cop Michael Slager who shot Walter Scott, has resigned.
Is this OK? While I get that the cop is scum, isn’t there some sort of lawyerly duty in play here?
I guess lawyers should be free to drop clients and stuff – free country and all that. But the timing kind of matters doesn’t it?
Not only can a lawyer do so, they should. The cop probably lied to his lawyer. His lawyer would have a very difficult time representing him thereafter, especially evaluating the decision about whether to testify or not.
If this defendant is going to get an acquittal at trial, he will have to testify and explain why he shot the guy.
No, it’s not OK.
First, once you accept a representation, you have an obligation to the client. You can withdraw, but you have an obligation to do it in a way that minimizes the damage to the client’s interests.
Second, you certainly cannot withdraw and then badmouth the client.
This guy will likely face ethical sanctions. But maybe the cop is lucky not to have an idiot for a lawyer.
Yes, the timing absolutely matters. If this was in the middle of a trial, the lawyer would have to get permission from the judge to withdraw, and to get that permission would have to have a lot better reason than “I think my client is an asshole who lied to me”.
At this stage though, the attorney can hand over the case to someone else without much problem.
Lawyers drop clients all the time, specifically for lack of the ability to cough up more dough. It’s not at all unethical, let alone if you’ve discovered that your client was lying (in the article, naturally, the lawyer does not say why he dropped the client).
I’m not sure whether your comments are meant to be general in nature, or speak to this situation. This lawyer did nothing wrong that I’m aware of; I’m also unaware of any “badmouth[ing[” of the client.
No, the lawyer wouldn’t need a reason better than “[My client] lied to me”, though whether he’d disclose that to the judge (on the record) is another matter (particularly problematic if it’s a bench trial, of course, but improper conversations occur all the time). It is exceedingly rare for a court to refuse to allow the attorney to withdraw from a case (and we’re not simply talking about criminal cases); more often than not, it is over money or strategic differences that can’t be reconciled.
I thought the lawyer would approach the judge and say they had a conflict of interest and could no longer represent their client.
The idea being the lawyer is an officer of the court so cannot perpetrate a fraud on the court (e.g. they know their client will lie under oath) and the flip side of having to represent their client to the best of their ability.
I have no idea if the judge will just take their word for that though.
That said, at this early stage, I’d be surprised if the lawyer couldn’t walk away for any reason or no reason whatsoever (including that he thinks his client is an asshole).
Maybe the lawyer believes any sanctions are worth accepting to get rid of an idiot client?
I can’t believe it’s rare for a criminal suspect to lie to his attorney. It’s not a good idea, but I doubt that it is rare.
The lawyer here was careful not to give his reasons for withdrawing, but he said a couple of times that it was after he saw the video that he withdrew. I would hope it wasn’t disgust at a client that would do such a thing that caused him to withdraw. Everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense, many lawyers have already said.
Maybe the cop is insisting on pleading not guilty, or “he had it coming”, and the lawyer did not feel he could put on such a defense with a straight face.
Does the police union always pay for a lawyer in cases like this?
Regards,
Shodan
From the lawyer’s statement, it seemed to be an obvious implication that his client lied (perhaps egregiously) to him, and he found himself unable to represent a client that lies to him.
A lawyer is ethically obligated to represent a client to best of ability, but it doesn’t follow that there’s an obligation to continue representing the client. I’ve never drilled down sufficiently to find out why folks believe that, once hired, one cannot quit a job where there is no contract term binding them to it (and no lawyer I’ve ever known would agree to such a term). I see the same questions on another site as it relates to doctors terminating a relationship with a patient; often, patient thinks the doctor is OBLIGATED to keep them as a client, which is of course untrue.
Your last observation is correct, no surprise needed; lawyer’s free to cut the client loose, esp. in this case. Of course, doing so in the middle of a murder trial would require a very good reason (but lawyers are no more or less likely to lie than anyone else, so the reason stated may not be the actual reason). It won’t likely be over money in such a case, 'cause the lawyer would be smart enough to ensure his client had access to the appropriate resources and also keep the retainer tank so to speak at an adequate level.
I know that most lawyers will leave the case if their fees aren’t paid.
It’s rare where the evidence of the lie would be so compelling. It’s not just that the client said something that contradicts what others have said. Here, the client probably said something that was so obviously untrue after viewing the video that the lawyer could reach no other conclusion.
A rape suspect may tell the lawyer “She consented,” and the victim may say she didn’t. The lawyer may strongly believe the client is lying, but there is no way to know for sure and his client gets the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, if this cop said, “he grabbed my taser and was coming at me when I shot him,” then it’s a lie. No doubt about it. So, how can the lawyer work with the client to come up with a plausible excuse that would work in light of the video evidence now that he’s been told a different lie? He has to get out, for the good of his client. A new lawyer can say, “well the video shows this, and the dash cam shows this, and only this and this would be a defense. What happened?”
As for the timing of the withdraw, it was before the first court appearance and before the lawyer had even officially made an appearance on the record or in the court file. He can withdraw without anyone’s permission.
Actually, that’s hard to do in a criminal case. Most criminal defense attorneys insist on all fees being paid in advance for that reason. Of course, it does happen, and if it isn’t right before trial, it doesn’t necessarily prejudice the defendant. I got appointed once after my client spent $100,000 in fees to a private attorney and ran out of money.
From the article, the lawyers answers were:
“I can’t specifically state what is the reason why or what isn’t the reason why I’m no longer his lawyer. All I can say is that the same day of the discovery of the video that was disclosed publicly, I withdrew as counsel immediately. Whatever factors people want to take from that and conclusions they want to make, they have the right to do that. But I can’t confirm from an attorney-client standpoint what the reason is.”
Now, I really don’t think that those comments come anywhere near creating a “material adverse effect on the interests of the client”. He was not his attorney long, and his statements, while they lead to certain inferences to be easily made, don’t amount to an adverse effect. In addition, it could be that, by representing a guy who lied to him repeatedly and/or required the lawyer to do something he found repugnant, would fit the bill allowing him to withdraw. I’m not seeing a breach of ethics here.
Have proceedings started? Is the lawyer on the papers as the lawyer of record, or is it just advice, etc.? The lawyer is obliged to cease representation in a way that minimizes damage to the client. If proceedings have started, sometimes permission of the court is required, and sometimes the client must consent to the withdrawal. It is highly dependent on the particular situation.
You can’t counsel perjury. If you have objective knowledge that a client is planning to commit perjury, you have an ethical oblication to withdraw.
Under the Ontario Code of Conduct, lawyers “may” withdraw if there has been a serious loss of confidence between lawyer and client, or if the client isn’t paying fees; they “must” withdraw if the client requires the lawyer to do anything unethical - such as to make an argument that relies of perjured evidence.
There are specifoc rules concerning representation in criminal trials - basically, if the withdrawal is for non-payment of fees, it is more difficult to do.
It’s worth noting that ethical rules/rules of professional conduct aren’t strictly observed. (Yeah, yeah, I know they’re supposed to be, but … they aren’t.)
But seriously, won’t Slager have his pick of the top criminal lawyers in South Carolina? The lawyer will be in the news a lot and will get a huge amount of free advertising.
That assumes the top criminal lawyers in South Carolina all have no conscience. It’s the duty of a lawyer to represent the man if the lawyer is assigned the case. And do a good job of it. But I can’t see having this guy as a client would be good publicity.