Live data from Hacker News

When is it okay for a lawyer to lie? (2018)

americanbar.org

11–20 of 146 posts

Re: When is it okay for a lawyer to lie? (2018)

#11
post #5

I few months ago I was in court, I was suing 2 related parties and I was pro-se. One of the lawyers of one of the defendants lied 3 times in front of the judge, when I called him upon it, the judge didn't bling. This was civil court, not small claims. Oh well.

What sort of lies?

Re: When is it okay for a lawyer to lie? (2018)

#12

These are interesting scenarios, but let's not forget that the rules are only binding under the threat of being caught and punished. They aren't like the laws of physics. So if a lawyer isn't supposed to engage in trickery, they might do so anyway, especially if they think they can get away with it and their client happens to be a rich criminal who pays them extra to do shady stuff. Source: Lawyers wouldn't have the…

Yeah, I didn't realize how downright nefarious lawyers can be until I read "Bad Blood" and thought to myself "How is what David Boies does to help Theranos legal? This seems extremely unethical at the very least, and highly illegal at most"

Re: When is it okay for a lawyer to lie? (2018)

#13

How is a court-appointed defense attorney supposed to do his job if he knows his client is guilty?

They would have to sit back, tell their client to plead the 5th, and let the prosecutor do their job of proving a crime was committed by the suspect beyond reasonable doubt.

I watched the OJ Simpson trial when I was a kid. I was sure he was guilty. I think his lawyers thought so as well. Once they realized the LAPD had tampered with the crime scene and the evidence they used that wedge to open the door for reasonable doubt. And they absolutely hammered at it for months. By the end the jury was full of doubt.

Most public defenders don't have the resources for that kind of defense. And most assume their client is guilty. Which is why plea bargains are prevalent.

Re: When is it okay for a lawyer to lie? (2018)

#14

How is a court-appointed defense attorney supposed to do his job if he knows his client is guilty?

The job of a defense attorney is to force the government to prove its case even if the defendant is guilty.

"Guilty" people deserve defense. Especially since, as we have seen, neither the police nor the prosecutors are above lying and fabrication.

Re: When is it okay for a lawyer to lie? (2018)

#15
post #5

I few months ago I was in court, I was suing 2 related parties and I was pro-se. One of the lawyers of one of the defendants lied 3 times in front of the judge, when I called him upon it, the judge didn't bling. This was civil court, not small claims. Oh well.

> when I called him upon it, the judge didn't bling.

Now I'm imagining that judge getting presented with evidence the defence lawyer is lying to them, and whipping out a chunky gold chain and a diamond encrusted grill...

Re: When is it okay for a lawyer to lie? (2018)

#16

How is a court-appointed defense attorney supposed to do his job if he knows his client is guilty?

Are you referring to court appointed public defenders? Oh, they don't work to find a defense for the defendant. They work to ensure the public's interests are defended. We don't want the state to get sloppy. Process and procedure needs to be followed and objections made to protect the public's interest in a fair trial.

Re: When is it okay for a lawyer to lie? (2018)

#17
post #12

These are interesting scenarios, but let's not forget that the rules are only binding under the threat of being caught and punished. They aren't like the laws of physics. So if a lawyer isn't supposed to engage in trickery, they might do so anyway, especially if they think they can get away with it and their client happens to be a rich criminal who pays them extra to do shady stuff. Source: Lawyers wouldn't have the…

Yeah, I didn't realize how downright nefarious lawyers can be until I read "Bad Blood" and thought to myself "How is what David Boies does to help Theranos legal? This seems extremely unethical at the very least, and highly illegal at most"

Totally agree about Boies. This behavior should have consequences. He behaved like a mafia hitman who doesn’t care who he is bringing down as long as the money keeps flowing. Basically he is a psychopath with no ethics.

Re: When is it okay for a lawyer to lie? (2018)

#18
post #5

I few months ago I was in court, I was suing 2 related parties and I was pro-se. One of the lawyers of one of the defendants lied 3 times in front of the judge, when I called him upon it, the judge didn't bling. This was civil court, not small claims. Oh well.

Was there clear and obvious evidence of the lies, or was it largely your testimony?

If there was clear and obvious evidence of the lies then you can submit a complaint to the bar (or whatever the disciplinary body is for lawyers in your state). The judge is NOT actually the one with the authority to enforce these professional obligations.

Re: When is it okay for a lawyer to lie? (2018)

#19
post #18
post #5

I few months ago I was in court, I was suing 2 related parties and I was pro-se. One of the lawyers of one of the defendants lied 3 times in front of the judge, when I called him upon it, the judge didn't bling. This was civil court, not small claims. Oh well.

Was there clear and obvious evidence of the lies, or was it largely your testimony? If there was clear and obvious evidence of the lies then you can submit a complaint to the bar (or whatever the disciplinary body is for lawyers in your state). The judge is NOT actually the one with the authority to enforce these professional obligations.

The judge doesn't enforce professional obligations but absolutely enforces perjury. Of course the real question is why was the lawyer testifying at all?

Re: When is it okay for a lawyer to lie? (2018)

#20

These are interesting scenarios, but let's not forget that the rules are only binding under the threat of being caught and punished. They aren't like the laws of physics. So if a lawyer isn't supposed to engage in trickery, they might do so anyway, especially if they think they can get away with it and their client happens to be a rich criminal who pays them extra to do shady stuff. Source: Lawyers wouldn't have the…

There are a number of structural mechanisms that make “getting away with it” difficult. First, the process is adversarial—there is another side with huge incentives to discover any fabrication. Second, there is an ethical duty to reveal misconduct in your knowledge, under punishment of penalties to yourself. It’s not enough for a rich criminal to pay off a lawyer; they have to pay off everyone else who might know. Third, ethics proceedings can destroy a person’s entire livelihood, and the standard is not “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” but “more likely than not.” And there’s no statute of limitations—misconduct can come back to bite you decades later.
Post reply on HN