I didn’t say it was. I said it was unethical to quit without taking reasonable measures to minimize the damage to the client. Quitting the day a damaging video is released without securing other counsel, and doing so in a very public and highly suggestive way, is highly unethical.
Entirely possible.
Exactly, which is what makes his statement to the press so unethical.
The guy shouldn’t have done media at all about his withdrawal. There is no way that such media appearances and press releases (!) benefit the client, and lots of ways it could or does damage the client.
He certainly should not have wink-winked the reason for his withdrawing in those improper media appearances. If he said anything, it should have been “I can’t specifically state what is the reason why or what isn’t the reason why I’m no longer his lawyer” and left it there.
He should not have withdrawn before helping the client to make other arrangements, or at such a highly suggestive time if there was no other compelling reason to do so at that moment.
The combination of the three amounts to unethical conduct in my book, and I would be surprised to learn that it wasn’t sanctionable under SC rules.
I agree with 1 and 2. I’m not bothered by 3, if he had complied with 1 and 2.
One possibly irrelevant point is that the police report was already out and everyone knew the officer misrepresented what happened.
You’re entitled to your opinion about what’s “highly unethical”, but if you think this was highly unethical, it’s apparently a good thing that you aren’t cognizant of what lawyers do, day in and day out, 'cause you might fall out in a dead faint every other second. 
Well, I’m entitled to my opinion, and it just so happens to be correct. A lawyer is obligated to protect his client’s interests even in the act of withdrawal. What is the argument for how blabbing to the media and obviously suggesting his client lied to him was anything other than a move for the lawyer’s personal interests and contrary to the client’s?
You’re right that lots of unethical conduct passes without discipline. And that’s too bad. We should be disbarring a lot more lawyers. (Though I would start with the assholes who take on cases they aren’t competent to handle, like about half the personal injury lawyers who take on excessive force cases.)
Yes, Richard Parker: you need to become more aware of what lawyers do, day in and day out.
Also cognizant. You need to get more cognizant.
IANAL, let alone a criminal L, and maybe I am being too cynical. It wouldn’t be the first time.
But is it really so unusual for a client to tell a lie that is subsequently resoundingly refuted by evidence unknown to the client and to the lawyer when the lie was told?
Larry Lowlife is arrested for stabbing his brother-in-law. He tells his lawyer, “Nope, I didn’t do it. I was never in the apartment that night, and I don’t own a knife.” Unbeknownst to Larry, the knife has his fingerprints on it, and the landlady remembers seeing Larry going into his brother-in-law’s apartment and heard them arguing loudly. Would his lawyer withdraw? I don’t see why he would. “A criminal lawyer who only defends the innocent will starve”, and ISTM that “a criminal lawyer who only defends the truthful” won’t be too fat either. Criminals lie all the time.
I understand the ethical duty not to suborn perjury, and if the cop in this case insists on sticking to some obviously false story, I thought the correct procedure is not to put the cop on the stand, or, if he insists on testifying, not cross-examine him.
I understand this part, but as mentioned by PastTense, I don’t see how it is good for this guy’s career to withdraw. Free publicity, and the off-chance that he can get a reduced sentence or even, perhaps, an acquital.
The lawyers on the SDMB are quite clear that their job is to make the state prove its case, even for the scummiest defendant. I am a little surprised to hear a lawyer saying that he can defend murderers and rapists and child molestors, but not people who lie about what is on videotape. Even the Boston Marathon bomber whose last name I can’t spell had lawyers, although their strategy seems not to try to contradict the mountains of evidence proving beyond any doubt that he did the crime, but to argue he shouldn’t be executed because his brother made him do it.
Does this mean that a client who is obviously, clearly guilty, and who obviously, clearly lied about his guilt, shouldn’t have a lawyer?
Regards,
Shodan
The rules for civil and criminal lawyers are different, but as a practical matter, if a criminal defense attorney submits a motion to withdraw and the judge signs it, then he’s off the case.
It’s up to the judge to decide if the reason for the withdraw (if any) is adequate, but, again, as a practical matter, the cop was only just arrested within the last few days. He’s got plenty of time to find another lawyer - one who wants to him as a client; rather than one who doesn’t.
I’d rather he remain ignorant, for his sake (no untoward losses of consciousness, and possibly hitting his noggin on the way down). Ignorance is (sometimes) bliss and, in this case, might avoid a concussion or two. He shouldn’t be obliged to lower his ethical standards.
The lawyer for Mr. Lowlife wouldn’t have to withdraw unless his client insisted on testifying falsely (and had no explanation for the fingerprints on the knife, etc. ) (although fingerprint comparison is not always an exact science).
There is no problem representing an obviously guilty client. That happens every day. That’s true even if he lies to the lawyer. But I don’t think criminal defense attorneys often allow clients to take the stand and say something different than they told the lawyer privately. It’s an issue debated frequently from law school forward, and it’s not really a gray area. This cop will have to testify to have a chance at trial, and he will have to say something that isn’t directly contradicted by the video. He can’t do that with the lawyer he lied to.
Richard Parker is absolutely correct that most misconduct goes undealt with, and he is correct that a lawyer must withdraw in a way calculated to minimize damage. Whether Officer Slager’s lawyer did that depends on what his other options for withdrawing were. Usually mentioning that he/she isn’t getting paid is straight out, but in this case, that might have minimized the damage to at least offer to the client to say that publicly. Or offer to say that Slager has decided to seek other counsel. But it is highly fact dependent.
I don’t think there’s much gray area here.
Obviously, it may well have been proper to withdraw. He may have been ethically compelled to withdraw.
But there’s no good argument for why he had to do so immediately (without reasonable notice to the client, it seems), much less while giving media interviews about it. I mean, c’mon, what’s the argument for how doing media interviews was calculated to protect the client’s interests?
If you’re a criminal lawyer who insists on only defending innocent clients you’re going to have a difficult time finding clients.
Beyond that, are you saying that any lawyer who defends someone guilty of murder has no conscience?
It’s correct, in your (humble, I presume) opinion.
I suspect lots of folks aren’t sufficiently competent to engage in their professions, I’m afraid, and wonder why it might be that first on the list would (evidently) be “half the personal injury lawyers who take on excessive force cases.”
Lawyers have a professional obligation to be competent. When they’re not, they aren’t supposed to take the case.
Because, in my experience, lots of personal injury lawyers improperly take on excessive force cases, and litigate them badly. My point was unethical withdrawal practices aren’t necessary the most urgent ethical issue I see. I see a lot of stuff that would probably qualify as malpractice if malpractice didn’t require the client to have a solid legal claim.
I agree, he shouldn’t have done the interview. But there is a chasm of difference between doing something you shouldn’t, and violating your code of ethics.
SC Rule 1.16(d):Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred.
Why was it not reasonably practicable to not put out a press release announcing the withdrawal and then give interviews suggesting the reason he withdrew?
How was less than 24 hours reasonable notice?
Is it ethical to withdraw because your client lied to you? I rather doubt the lawyer could be sure that the cop was going to perjure himself.
Or is it more “I can’t offer a skillful defense because my client keeps getting contradicted by new evidence”?
Regards,
Shodan
John Adams came to fame defending the British soldiers who committed the Boston Massacre and he successfully got six of the eight acquitted and the other two got manslaughter convictions and fairly lenient sentences. It’s actually a pretty good parallel to this case. Public opinion was overwhelming in one direction, the redcoats were very unpopular. All eight soldiers were up against murder charges. Tons of witnesses, everyone knew what had happened, very damning evidence against the soldiers. Abuse of power/authority.
Some ambitious SC lawyer will undoubtedly step up.
Enjoy,
Steven
The cop will have to perjure himself to win this case. Or, more precisely, will have to say something different than the lie he told his lawyer. There might be a truthful story that the cop can tell that will support his defense, but the problem is what he has already told his lawyer is something different. (we assume) The lawyer isn’t withdrawing because he is offended he was lied to, or because the guy might be guilty. He is withdrawing, I assume, because he cannot ethically present a winning defense. The lie about what happened has tied his hands. Better to let someone else try to help this guy.