I’m not sure why you feel the need to point out the obvious. At any rate, attorneys are no different than any other person in terms of the ability to self-assess. (Hopefully, it’s accepted that passing a bar exam doesn’t mean one is competent to practice a given type or types of law.)
It was reasonably practicable to not put out a press release. That doesn’t make it unethical.
I’d need to know more, but why do you assume it’s unreasonable? Wouldn’t a phone call saying “I’m not your lawyer anymore” be reasonable notice? I think you’re really stretching to find something, anything, to hang your “unethical” hat on, but I’m just not seeing how waiting a few more days to withdraw in any way would somehow add to the protection of his interests.
In Ontario at least, a lawyer may withdraw if there has been a ‘breakdown in the relationship of trust’ between lawyer and client; a lawyer is only required to withdraw if the client is seeking that the lawyer do something illegal or unethical.
In this case, I would hypothesize that the withdrawal fell under the first category - that there was a breakdown in the relationship (that is, the lawyer thought he was defending one kind of case, and found out it was another kind, which strained and broke his relationship with his client, who had no doubt egregiously lied to him). It is simply too early in the case for the client to be demanding suborning perjury etc.
Huh? How do you read the rule I cited other than saying that in order to be ethical you have to do what is reasonably practicable to protect the client’s interests?
I’m not stretching at all. This is just yet another reason. None of my other reasons have been refuted yet.
The reason to give notice is so the guy can secure other counsel before getting dropped. Ever tried to find a lawyer with a few hours notice? Moreover, delaying would have diminished the inference that the client lied to him about what happened.
Adams’ conscience required him to defend those soldiers under the circumstances he saw: that they were not guilty and that they deserved the best defense possible.
Slager’s lawyer doesn’t quite measure up to that standard. He was way too noisy in his withdrawal.
Yes, lawyers who do criminal defense work must be able to stomach defending their client. Slager’s lawyer obviously couldn’t. They do have to defend the guilty on a regular basis, and put forth the best defense possible.
Which one win out, the no fraud thing or defending the client, or are they both equal? I ask because if they’re both equal, couldn’t the lawyer reason that to the best of his ability, he can’t knowingly put forth a defense that includes lying, but he can ignore it? And tell his client he’s not going to say he didn’t kill the guy, just ignore the question each time, and stay on as his lawyer but not use all the tools available to get him off? I mean, its still to the best of his ability, just that his ability is constrained due to the lying
I’m saying I don’t think it injured the client’s interest to any amount that would constitute an ethical breach.
I’d be willing to bet that there are no repercussions from the Bar for the attorney’s actions. You up for it?
Slager hired high-powered Andy Savage, who has quite the resume, the very next day. I don’t think his interests were harmed at all.
The guy doesn’t need a lawyer right away. He hasn’t even been charged. Once charged, all he has to do is plead “not guilty.” Indeed that’s all he can do usually at the first appearance. (and ask for bail, but that can be done later). A lawyer would be appointed for him at his first appearance, in the unlikely event he hadn’t secured one by then. I see no problem with this lawyer withdrawing immediately. (he’s not technically withdrawing, as he has never told the court he was the attorney of record). I am not at all troubled by him quitting representation right away, but he should have just done so, and not said any more.
Way it works is this: if you know your client will commit perjury if put on the stand, you put forward a defence that doesn’t require putting your client on the stand.
It is, in theory at least, up to the state to prove the client’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: the client need not take the stand in his defence - the lawyer for the defence can simply say ‘I don’t need his or her evidence, the state hasn’t proved a case against him or her’.
I say in theory, because in reality this would be very risky - juries are made of humans who, instructions or not, are liable to draw ‘adverse inferences’ if someone doesn’t take the stand to defend him or herself. But it can be done, and is done. Sometimes merely for strategic reasons - some people make very poor and unsympathetic witnesses, even if they aren’t lying.
I’m not sure that the ethical breach is or should be measured by the harm actually caused by the breach, but even allowing that analysis, how does it not sufficiently harm his interests to publicly suggest that the client lied to him?
I have no idea how strict the S.C. professional boards are about this, so I would not enter such a bet. I will bet that at least some people who we would both concede are more expert on ethical obligations than you or I will share my opinion. How about that bet?
South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16:
(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:
(1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client; or
(3) the lawyer is discharged.
(b) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:
(1) withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client;
(2) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(3) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement;
(5) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services or payment therefor and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(6) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or
(7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
(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.
(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. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law. The lawyer may retain a reasonable nonrefundable retainer.
Click the link to see comments to the rule, which help clarify its provisions.
You want to bet that different lawyers will take different sides on a legal issue? Would you like to bet that water is wet or that the sun will rise tomorrow too?
Yes, I would very much like to bet on those things.
Here’s Noah Feldman on the issue: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-09/officer-michael-slager-deserves-a-better-lawyer
The “no fraud thing” wins out. A lawyer must defend their client to the best of their ability without violating their oath as an officer of the court.