Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

americanbar.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 146 posts

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

#101

Post by srtjstjsj »

woofie11 wrote: post #30
nordsieck wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lawyers wouldn't have the reputation they do if all the members of the club had integrity. While it's true that some lawyers are unethical some of the time, it seems highly unlikely that lawyers are unethical as often as their reputation suggests. A much more likely explanation is: 1. The complexity of the law. 2. The incongruity between the law and many people's ethical codes. 3. The skill gradient that exists amo…

I know a lot of lawyers. Most lawyers in law firms are just as unethical just as often as their reputation suggests. There are high-integrity lawyers out there, and if you find one, cling onto them. They're out there, but they're rare. A much more likely explanation are misaligned incentive structures, combined with a protective guild-like bar organization which lawyers belong to.

Any professional in a competitive field fakes immense selective pressure to be unethical. It doesn't matter how honest one is, the system will select for the cheater. This goes for lawyers, bicyclists, tradespeople, anywhere where the client or victims of externalities can't verify the quality of the work and hold them accountable.

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

#102

Post by mwexler »

I find it interesting in the US that we hold lawyers to the high standard of no lying, while law enforcement officers are given more latitude, esp in interrogation situations.

Seeing it in TV shows and movies, which often have officers and detectives lying about knowledge, evidence, other witness statements, all to get info, I assumed that it was fictional. In many cases, though not all, it appears to be allowed within limits in real life. See, for example, https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.adamsluka.com/amp/can-the-p....

This doesn't mean all cops are liars, and they still shouldn't commit perjury, but it's an interesting comparison to me. I guess it's a reflection of the advocate/adversary approach that is often a part of the legal process.

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

#103

Post by bob33212 »

ta1234567890 wrote: post #66
parsimo2010 wrote: post #7

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…

> Lawyers wouldn't have the reputation they do if all the members of the club had integrity. Some anecdotes: - A company I started, hired a big-brand SV legal firm, super expensive. We thought they would be great. But we were so little to them, it was sometimes even hard to get a timely response. In the end we stopped using them, but not before we signed a bunch of documents they reviewed and told us were fine to sig…

I worked with a lawyer who thought his job was to negotiate a contract with the least amount of liability for us. In theory that sounds good. But these contracts ended up sounding ridiculous to customers with statements like:

"Under no circumstances will vendor be liable for any damages in excess of 10% of the purchase price of the vendor services"

Customers assume you are trying to scam them with language like that. But he didn't care, he just wanted to be able to be proud of how little liability we took on. I finally had to point out that the best way to reduce our liability is to shut the company down and end our need for legal services all together.

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

#104

Post by Iv »

pabs3 wrote: post #50
Iv wrote: post #37

It has been several years ago that I discovered that despite a similar philosophy behind law-writing and programming, these worlds are very far apart and every year, even when I thought my cynicism was stable, the gap continues to widen. This is from the American Bar Association, it is the opposite of a blog post you would end with IANAL. Yet, we read (at the end) that even professional lawyers are "struggling" with…

If you have any more info about the licensing issues around deep learning models, I'd be very interested to read it. In exchange, here is a link to the Debian Deep Learning Team's Machine Learning policy: https://salsa.debian.org/deeplearning-team/ml-policy

Well, I'd be happy to have someone to chat with and exchange ideas about it. I am currently digging that rabbit hole that seems to be basically uncharted waters.

I would like to find a way to make true open source deep learning models.

Debian legal newsletter [1] and lwn[2] have interesting takes on the relevance of GPL. To them, putting a trained model under the GPL implicates that you have to open your dataset too, which are the "sources". That seems somehow consensual but I still think it is debatable and could need clarification.

I also dug around the question whether a trained model can actually be copyrightable if the training code and the dataset are free. This is akin to a "compilation" operation that adds no creative input (anyway applying copyright to source code is already a bit of a hack). There is a pretty strong ground to argue that they are similar to "compilation of facts" which come with very little protection.

I am now wondering if open source can actually work for deep learning: if trained models are not copyrightable, open source licenses require strong copyright protection to be implemented. Maybe a DL model is not protected enough for that.

Finally, I am reassured by recent fair use rulings that a model will probably not be considered a derived work of its dataset and that proprietary data can legally be used to produce an unencumbered model but the legal uncertainty still exists.

If you are interested in helping me trying to figure out how to protect crucial models so that the first AGI will be beneficial to all and open sourced, I'd be very happy to have someone poke holes into my ideas.

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/05/msg00028.html [2] https://lwn.net/Articles/760142/

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

#105

Post by matthewheath »

paxys wrote: post #19
mcherm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It doesn't sound like the lawyer was testifying? They can certainly lie in their presentation of the case, during summing up, etc.

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

#106

Post by srtjstjsj »

justinclift wrote: post #59
gamblor956 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've actually served on the ethics committee for the bar association. We discipline lawyers all the time. The bar does not exist to serve lawyers, it exists to regulate them.

From the perspective of a lay person, it doesn't to be effective in doing so. eg. Places like Prenda Law being able to operate openly for years before being shut down, etc.

Prenda Law operated for 1 year before they were caught, and then. Disbarred and imprisoned.

The reason they continued their crimes for 3 years was that it's impossible to prevent someone from doing paperwork crimes if they aren't in prison.

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

#107

Post by Iv »

pabs3 wrote: post #50
Iv wrote: post #37

It has been several years ago that I discovered that despite a similar philosophy behind law-writing and programming, these worlds are very far apart and every year, even when I thought my cynicism was stable, the gap continues to widen. This is from the American Bar Association, it is the opposite of a blog post you would end with IANAL. Yet, we read (at the end) that even professional lawyers are "struggling" with…

If you have any more info about the licensing issues around deep learning models, I'd be very interested to read it. In exchange, here is a link to the Debian Deep Learning Team's Machine Learning policy: https://salsa.debian.org/deeplearning-team/ml-policy

Also, another back and forth in DebConf 2012 that introduces the problem and presents some real world implications: http://penta.debconf.org/dc12_schedule/events/888.en.html

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

#108

Post by ikeboy »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #98
ikeboy wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80% of doctors don't suck. It's not that lawyers suck, per se. It's that you're dealing with an adversary, and if you get a 50th percentile lawyer to go against a 90th percentile lawyer, well, you could still win if you've got a good case, but it's certainly not as likely as the reverse. In many cases you get what you pay for.

80% of doctors (especially cheap ones like the lawyers mentioned above) would fail to get optimal results in complex scenarios like presented above, just like the lawyers.

The doctors wouldn't be put in that position, though. While lawyers will often gladly take a case that they have a low chance of winning without fully disclosing that.

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

#109

Post by pc86 »

mwexler wrote: post #102

I find it interesting in the US that we hold lawyers to the high standard of no lying, while law enforcement officers are given more latitude, esp in interrogation situations. Seeing it in TV shows and movies, which often have officers and detectives lying about knowledge, evidence, other witness statements, all to get info, I assumed that it was fictional. In many cases, though not all, it appears to be allowed with…

Non-AMP link: https://www.adamsluka.com/can-the-police-lie-to-me.html

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

#110

Post by srtjstjsj »

tptacek wrote: post #40
woofie11 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever tried filing a misconduct compliant with a bar association? You'll get just about as far as a police violence compliant with the local PD. The bar is there to serve the lawyers, like any guild or union. For the most part, there are no checks on lawyer ethics.

Isn't the bar association a guild or union? The state court system hears serious ethics complaints.

Each state delegates much of the legal oversight of lawyers to the $State Bar Association, from initial licensing to disbarrment.
Post reply on HN