So yes, that would be relevant information especially if the attorney broke ethical or legal rules in regards to that information. And again, you are a private citizen and he is a private attorney. The SG is a public official and his clients are public officials acting in their governmental roles. If there are crimes or impropriaties being committed then those need to be brought to light.
Yes, but that story was offered in response to the question: "Can you give an example why an attorney doing the best job he can within legal and ethical limits would damage his reputation as a lawyer? "
Nothing in your quote is relevant to the story furt relates. furt was not contemplating perjury, preparing a securities disclosure statement, a sale of a business or property, or a listing of assets for a bankruptcy, marriage dissolution or estate proceeding. The attorney’s response was perfectly appropriate, and your reaction it to is PRECISELY the sort of ignorance that makes my point.
We’ll set “crimes” aside for the moment.
How about strategic decisions concerning interaction with key members of the Senate, and candid opinions from the attorney concerning Senate members, the influence they have, and their abilities? Does the country have a right to learn that?
I’d also like to modify the request to a scenario that would apply to a government lawyer. Certainly Mr. Roberts private employers are under no obligation to disclose Mr. Roberts’ legal advice.
Huh, what about the last line? There certainly is a good chance that I am mistaken but I was under the impression that lawyer could not knowingly allow his client to perjure himself.
Strategic (assuming politically strategic) decisions are not official government business and the public does not necessarily have a right to know about those.
I have no problem with the attorney not caring that furt was guilty and my statement was that the statement wasn’t quite correct and its not. The correct answer would be to advise furt of his duties and instruct him not to perjure himself. Like I said, neglecting to do so is releveant information and would be more so if he did allow furt to perjure himself. In the grand scheme of things his answer was not a big deal and I acknowledged it by saying the statement was not quite correct.
But it would be seen as a big deal by joe average had I been an accused rapist.
We’re not talking about perjury; presumably me-the-rapist wasn’t put on the stand. We’re talking about me, years later, bringing it up in an attempt to make my lawyer look bad.
As to a a SG instance: Let’s say that the administration is doing something that skirts the edge of illegality. Roberts writes a memo advising that this could possibly be illegal; the law isn’t clear, but it could be. The administration thanks him for his opinion, but does it anyway.
He has done exactly his lawyerly duty; but it can easily be spun into “you knew that the government was breaking the law, but you did nothing to stop it.”
Indeed, he would still be doing his lawyerly duty if he said “an argument could be made that this action is illegal; however, I don’t think the other party is smart enough to figure that out, and moreover, nobody will likely know or care.”
That, AFAICT, is exactly the sort of advice a good lawyer is supposed to give. But it is very easy to get someone with it politically.
A criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel. He also has an absolute right to testify. And a lawyer has a duty of candor towards the tribunal.
In other words, the lawyer cannot prevent a client from perjuring himself.
Reconciling these conflicting duties is not simple. A lawyer whose client insists of testifying and perjuring himself may ask leave to withdraw from the case. For various reasons, the judge may not permit him to withdraw. If the judge does not permit withdrawal, the lawyer will not use the perjured testimony – he won’t argue it in closing, and will let his client testify in narrative rather than question-and-answer – but ultimately, saying that the lawyer cannot allow a client to perjure himself is not accurate; it’s woefully incomplete.
[/quote]
Strategic (assuming politically strategic) decisions are not official government business and the public does not necessarily have a right to know about those.
[/QUOTE]
This is an exceedingly tenous connection and given the gravity of the appointment I don’t think this should stand in the way of the Senate getting the information it deems its needs.
Fine, then “I don’t give a rats ass” isn’t quite the correct answer to give.
I have an additional question, if this isn’t the wrong time to ask it. Is the Senate normally allowed to see communications like this? I realize that not every Supreme Court nominee is a former Deputy Solicitor General, but there must be some precedent here.
I think this is an oversimplification at best. There are many other possible, perhaps even likely, motives for the Administration’s actions. Similarly the Senators will be voting on a package of qualities Roberts has as a nominee, not just the narrow issue of if this was a acceptable use of privilege between the President and the Solicitor General.