I have worked with lots and lots of lawyers and they were all fine and honest lawyers, ethically. The thing is that there are tricks and quirks of the law and one of the things they must do is represent their clients vigorously. It’s part of their job to know what they have to disclose to the opposing side and what the opposing side has to prove, and they don’t have to reveal their strategy. There are some things that sound like dirty tricks but which are perfectly legal.
Now, personally some of them weren’t so fine. Serial adulterers, shoplifters, drug users, and I think even a money launderer. And a couple who were so dumb they must have cheated their way through high school, college, and law school, I can’t think of any other explanation.
Of course if they’d been caught at some of these things they’d have been disbarred. Obviously not serial adultery and I think the shoplifting thing was a juvie offense anyway. Not to mention that some of them could be really smug pricks. But most of them weren’t like that and were in fact really good people.
In my thread about child abuse, I was asked if there were any lasting effects of the abuse and “torture” inflicted upon me. One effect I don’t believe I posted was that the last and worst whipping (with a belt) I received was because I told the truth and my two friends lied. My Dad didn’t believe me (we spent the day the library despite my parents telling me not to, not believing we were so innocent) and continually whipped me for a “confession”.
This event left me with a vow to tell the “absolute truth” whenever possible. So yes, I believe a lawyer prompting me to use “persuasive speech” and withholding information was tantamount to lying. I was sworn to tell the WHOLE truth and felt that I did not as I was prompted to speak in an unnatural (for me) manner. @ruadh
I’m honored that lawyer has joined this discussion. I place great hope upon you that are one of the “honest” IMHO ones.
Assuming for this scenario, you’re a criminal defense lawyer. And you had a client whom you knew based on their past history (dismissing mental illness) would with 100% surety commit the same or worse crime again (whether burglary, assault, rape or murder). Would you still defend this person in the same way, placing the burden on the prosecution to convict this “innocent until proven guilty” person, using whatever means necessary to prove their “innocence”? Yes, I understand that law may require you to defend this person to the best of your ability, but as a member of society does this requirement override your moral obligation to that society? Yes, this is no win situation, which I understand we need someone to undertake (on both sides), but what percentage of “honesty” can you say possess?
The other side of this scenario would be you, as a prosecuting attorney know with 100% certainty that the defendant will commit the same or worse crime once found not guilty, but know with the same 100% certainty that they are not guilty of the crime they are charged with. Do you proceed in a manner (up to withholding evidence that would prove them 100% innocent) that would lead to a conviction of this “innocent person”? Again, what percentage of “honesty” can you say you possess.
As an example of “crooked lawyers” while it will never be know how much Al Capone’s lawyers actually knew about his criminal activity (up to possible mass murder), I believe they must have been morally corrupt or under threat of death to continue to defend and win his acquittal.
lingyi, those are fair questions. I don’t generally practise in criminal law and a good part of that reason is that I would personally struggle with defending someone who I genuinely believe to be a danger to society. And most of the criminal defence lawyers I know will also say that they have taken cases that trouble their conscience. But I think that’s a separate issue to the issue of honesty.
Due to TV and various relatives, I used to believe like the OP. After dealing with (and hiring) a few attorneys I’ve changed my mind. In my experience they’re surprisingly ethical, and they know the law very well. Sometimes, consulting an attorney and following their advice, can be one of the smartest things you’ll ever do.
Yeah, but those codes are essentially self-enforced by state disciplinary commissions. I tend to be dubious of groups that self regulate. ISTM that comingling of funds is the most common type of offense they address.
The type of dishonesty I’ve encountered most often is the lie of omission. Failure to disclose evidence or precedent that might be contrary to their client’s position.
Depends on how generous you want to be, whether you attribute all-too-common misstatements of the law or record to ineptitude or dishonesty. I regularly see attorneys who take on clients and then fail to competently represent them - either because they are incompetent or find the case is not worth their while economically. Do you consider that dishonesty?
Speaking from my personal experience as a judge. I have often said - only somewhat in jest - that a claimant’s chances of success increase tremendously if BOTH the claimant AND their lawyer are not complete lying sacks of shit. :dubious:
I work (in Colorado) with probably a hundred plaintiff lawyers over the course of a year, some of them on multiple cases; and routinely about 40-50 defense lawyers. The plaintiff/defense relationship is very much a game of “Go Fish”. Defense gives only the information requested by the Plaintiff and vice versa. It gets frustrating and contentious sometimes, especially when an exchange like, “Come on, you know what I mean” “No, I only know what you asked. You’ll need to be more specific in your request.” come up. I’d say, at least with the civil attorneys in my jurisdiction, lawyers can be frustratingly literal and honest. There are some who hide the ball, bluff, and straight up lie. They are despised as incompetent even within their own bar.
That said, I’m not sure I’ve ever encountered more than a (very small) handful of honest lawyers in Illinois. But again, the playing field is fairly level as dishonesty is an expectation there.
Slightly different question: if your “place” on this jury is instead taken by someone who does not think as carefully about the fairness of our criminal justice system as you do, are you comfortable with the guilt or innocence of a person being decided by a less-competent jury?
I think there’s no doubt that there are lawyers who are criminals. As to whether there are more lawyers breaking the law as compared to, say, businessmen, bankers, architects, or whatever… I have no idea.
As I understand it, the obligation to pursue justice, as opposed to merely seeking conviction or acquittal, lies only on the prosecuting attorney. If the DA is convinced that the accused didn’t do it, he or she is ethically supposed to drop the case, even if he or she is quite certain that the accused is going to go out and commit some other crime.
It doesn’t go the other way - a defense attorney is supposed to do anything he can ethically to get his or her client acquitted, even with the 100% certainty that the client will rape/murder/whatever the instant he gets out of jail.
We, as a society, have decided that the standard in court is not “did he really do it?” It is “can the prosecution prove that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt, subject to the rules of evidence, and with the advice of someone who knows how to work the system”.
That standard certainly has advantages and disadvantages. So would any other standard. Is it really better that 100 guilty men go free than that one innocent man gets convicted? Should it be 90 and 2? Should it be 50-50? All these are judgment calls.
The easy answer is that no innocents should be convicted and no guilty acquitted. Easy, and impossible. Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer cherce.
I’ve never been one, but my impression is that prosecutors have considerable discretion in choosing which charges to bring. I do believe they are allowed to “inflate” possible charges in order to get cooperation from suspects. Decide for yourself whether you consider that dishonest.
I know police do not have to be truthful in questioning suspects. I do not know if prosecutors are required to be truthful.
Come to think of it, lawyers quite often engage in “bluffing.” * “We’ll sue you to within an inch of your life.” * When you know your client has no leg to stand on. Hoping the opponent falls for the threat. Is that dishonesty?
This is not an accurate statement, and I don’t understand your basis for phrasing it as you did. The job of a defense attorney is to provide his client with the best defense possible. “Acquittal” is often not the remedy being sought. Frequently, it is seeking a more favorable sentence for the client that still allows justice to be served while taking into account the personal circumstances of the individual being prosecuted.
My life has been so tame I’ve had very little contact with lawyers. I was, however, plaintiff in a civil suit and will report on the two lawyers I hired for that case.
The civil suit was over an open-and-shut breach of contract; I was only sueing for a few $1000’s and doing it more out of interest to see the legal system in action (and annoyance at contract breacher) than a concern for the money. It should have been a trivial exercise, an easy win, for any beginning lawyer.
I agreed to pay the lawyer “actual expenses” and a percent of the settlement (though adjusted with a weird formula). He kept sending me bills:
Telephoned defendant’s attorney. He wasn’t available so left a message — $10
Telephoned defendant’s attorney again. Still unavailable — $10
Talked with defendant’s attorney. — $25
The invoice was obviously generated with some fancy software. Remember that I was only supposed to pay actual expenses. Months and months went by. When I took charge again, I realized that he had submitted Zero (0) court filings. Calling the other attorney was his sole occupation.
He had mentioned that I could use him to notarize documents for free, so I visited his office with a document for INS. Next thing I know he hands me the phone — I’m talking to another lawyer, an immigration specialist.
“Yak yak Yakkity yak yak yak.”
(I want to interrupt to say I’m not interested, but don’t want to be impolite.)
“Yak yak Yakkity yak yak yak Yakkity Yakkity yak.
Yakkity Yakkity yak yak yak.
Yakkity Yakkity.”
Finally I force an interruption and say I’m not interested.
“Not interested!” the lawyer shrieked at me over the phone. “I just wasted two minutes talking to you!”
I fired that lawyer and got another. (The first I’d found in yellow pages, 2nd was the husband of sister’s old college buddy.) This 2nd lawyer was some sort of evangelical Christian. He was consistently rude to me, incompetent, and failed to honor my specific requests. When we finally received a check from defendant he had his secretary lead me by the hand to the bank; she took his cut in cash then and there. I was 1099’ed for the full amount; never did try to figure out how to claim my “legal expenses” or whether I was supposed to file 1099’s on the lawyer(s).
HTH.
ETA: 2nd lawyer told me 1st lawyer had called and asked for a cut. Maybe they sued each other over it!
Right, but I also have a tendency to question the morality of other people that do things that I personally find morally questionable. It’s a tough one, I think defense attorneys are a necessary evil. I just don’t know how a person could sleep at night getting a murderer back on the streets.
Hard to believe you had a lawyer bill as little as $10 for an unsuccessful phone call. Common practice I see is to bill in qtr hr increments. (Lawyers who are not complete whores bill in tenths of an hour - 6 minutes.) If you charge $200/hr, a qtr hr is $50, a tenth $20. You bill the minimum amount every time you touch anything related to a case.
One thing clients seem not to understand is that whenever they call their atty, he is on the clock and they will get billed for that. Also, even if you ask to talk to the atty’s staff, you’ll likely get billed for that - tho at a lower rate.
During the brief time I was in private practice, I would take my mail into the bathroom with me and bill a couple of hours while taking my morning dump. These days, with smart phones, you could bill pretty much wherever you were - while driving, whatever. Could probably even double bill - travel time for a certain case, and work on another case while driving.
Not sure I consider aggressive billing “dishonest.” IME, courts generally approve atty fees I consider extremely inflated. If the courts aren’t offended, why should I be?
A person is a murderer when the court declares her/him to be a murderer, not when the police declares her/him to be a murderer. BTW, the chances of a lawyer knowing that his client is guilty are about as slim as that same lawyer being a witness or participant in that crime.
Common practice I see is to bill in qtr hr increments. (Lawyers who are not complete whores bill in tenths of an hour - 6 minutes.) If you charge $200/hr, a qtr hr is $50, a tenth $20. You bill the minimum amount every time you touch anything related to a case.