Maybe it’s just Hollywood taking poetic license again, but I’m curious about something.
I just saw the end of The Devil’s Advocate again. Keanu Reeves asks the judge to be replaced as counsel for the defendant at what is clearly a touchy point in the trial (defense examination of the witness against his client), and I can understand that a lawyer might be censured for that act. Reeves and others refer to the likelihood of his being disbarred.
Wouldn’t disbarment be a little extreme in this case, though? What else could a lawyer do at trial to make disbarment a strong possibility?
not familiar with the movie - why did he ask to be replaced?
I don’t want to give too much away for those who haven’t seen the movie, but -
Basically, Keanu Reeves’ character comes to think his client is very likely guilty of molesting a mentally handicapped girl, and he can’t bring himself to continue defending the guy. The prosecution put the girl on the stand, and it’s his turn to question her… but he can’t do it. So he asks the judge to be replaced, though he never says why in open court. An uproar ensues, with the judge asking something like, “Do you understand the ramifications of your actions?” And the subsequent conversation among various characters outside the courtroom suggests that the ramifications = disbarment.
It seems a little excessive a reaction to me, but that’s why I’m wondering whether it’s realistic or just Hollywood in action.
short answer, you are correct that disbarment would be highly unlikely, and, I suspect, further correct that the discussion of disbarment in the movie was there for dramatic effect.
As a practical matter, conduct like this by the defense attorney would likely lead to a mistrial, and sanctions, and possibly a contempt of court citation.
I don’t believe that the situation described in the movie–lawyer is about to question witness for the other side, but just can’t bring himself to use his mighty cross-examination skills to destroy a truthful victim–does not, I believe, occur very often. As depicted in movies, cross-examination of a victim is a battle of wits, with lots of twists and turns. In real life, it tends to be a much drier affair.
What DOES happen from time to time is that the client wants to testify and his own attorney knows that he is going to lie. For the attorney to put ANY witness on the stand when the attorney knows the witness will lie is a violation of professional ethics. So the solution is that the defendant takes the stand, the attorney does NOT ask any questions, and the defendant says whatever he wants to say. Then the other side cross-examines him.
Thanks, constantine. The rest of the movie isn’t terribly realistic, so I’m not too surprised that the legal bits aren’t either. 
The reason for the possibility of some sort of sanctions is that a criminal defence lawyer knows from the start that it’s his/her job to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, even if the witness is a young doe-eyed child. Aside from the time travel element, on which the model Codes of Conduct are strangely silent, Keanu knew from the start that he had to do this. To back out in the middle of a trial and refuse to do his job could trigger a mistrial, with attendant public expense and stress for all the witnesses. To refuse to do his job at this stage could be some sort of professional misconduct, but as constantine said, I doubt that it would reach to disbarrment - I would think it would be more about counselling (“have you really made the right choice of an area of practice?” and ethics/criminal law practice courses.
Would it make a difference if he were a public defender vs one hired by the defendant to represent him in court? Would a PD have a better or worse chance of backing out in the middle of a trial?
No difference between the two. In both cases, there is a duty to continue, and in any event backing out in open court, so that a mistrial is practically guaranteed, some sort of sanctions will most likely follow. I agree with the comments above, though, that disbarment is unlikely. There are a number of sanctions that fall sort of disbarment: private reprimand, public reprimand, and suspension. Reinstatement after suspension may be conditioned upon taking particular refresher courses in particular areas.
The penalty would be dependant in large measure on the lawyer’s prior disciplinary record, if any, and any mitigating circumstances he could raise during the investigation into the incident.
I spent a small period of time working with bar counsel for lawyer discipline cases, and I can tell you that every single case that I saw had to do with very mundane matters – often, financial mismanagement (co-mingling of funds between escrow and business expense accounts, etc). For whatever it’s worth…
Hmmmmmm.
Did he ask for new counsel or ask for new counsel, refusing to proceed?
Would that make a difference?
Secondly, if he had knowledge of a future crime, would he have an obligation to advise his former client not to do it?
I’m reckoning not…
“Yeah, that Sally Smith girl you’re thinking about molesting… well, I know you’re thinking about it, so stop it. Or, would you like to set up a fund to help you make bail?”
Am I the only one amused that a Doper named constantine is weighing Keanu Reeves’s legal ethics? Talk about a conflict of interest… 