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

121–130 of 146 posts

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

#121

Post by blaser-waffle »

flowerlad wrote: post #8

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

"You defend the principle, not the man", or something to that effect.

The legal system is convoluted enough that it requires a guide and domain-specific expertise. That doesn't mean the public defender's goal is to get them off, simply to serve as that guide and offer them the ability to understand their challenges and options.

Sometimes you're guilty as shit and it's unambiguously on camera, so the defense attorney's job is not to magically get you off -- that ain't gonna happen -- but to ensure you don't get utterly fucked over by a shitty plead deal and/or that mitigating factors are taken into considerations; e.g. "normally offenders with no record who did $crime only got $sentence; why is this twice as high?"

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

#122

Post by rayiner »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #110
tptacek wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It depends on the state. In New York and Illinois, the bar is an organ of the court system, and bar associations are separate private organizations.

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

#123

Post by Viliam1234 »

sokoloff wrote: post #89
yardie wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

An alternate explanation for the prevalence of plea bargains is that many defendants are actually guilty of something, that guilt is likely enough provable to not be worth the risk, and we’ve allowed sentencing guidelines and charge-stacking practices to amplify that risk to the point where it’s game theoretic sensible to take a light plea deal. I’m not nearly convinced that public defender assumption of guilt is a s…

Unfortunately, there are reasons to accept a plea bargain even if you are perfectly innocent.

First, reality is not important per se, only how the judge and the jury see it. If you know you didn't do something, but there is evidence pointing towards you, and you have a reason to believe that people judging you would be convinced by it... it makes sense to accept a smaller punishment (for something you didn't do) rather than risk years of prison (for something you didn't do).

Second, the process itself is already a punishment. How many times can you be absent from your job because you are at the court, before you lose the job? How much will it cost you to pay for the lawyer, for travel, etc. If you are poor, it can make more sense to accept a smaller punishment for something you didn't do, rather than ruin your life in an attempt to prove your innocence.

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

#124

Post by bdowling »

blaser-waffle wrote: post #116
codesections wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Same could be said for software developers. I am licensed attorney and a full-time software developer and I agree 100% - there are remarkable similarities. (And there are strong parallels between big tech and biglaw, especially for junior devs/associates, but that's a bit of a tangent)

> (And there are strong parallels between big tech and biglaw, especially for junior devs/associates, but that's a bit of a tangent) Are there parallels? I mean to some degree all large, well paying orgs are going to have similarities, but a plucky undergrad coming out of CalTech will get $130k+ at a FAANGM or orgs that pay roughly in that continuum, and be able to jump to all sorts of other options, while most newly…

> average salaries of $70-$80k USD

> ruthless wageslavery at BigLaw

Big law associates start at $190k, straight out of law school. Big law associates are, however, the top graduates from the top law schools. Most new law graduates don’t make that much, just like most new CS grads don’t make FAANG starting salaries.

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

#125

Post by throwawaygh »

austincheney wrote: post #52
throwawaygh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a lawyer there are rules that define standards of behaviors and violation thereof can quickly terminate not just employment but the career forever. Software doesn’t have that and the entire idea is utterly foreign. This is mostly a function of the industry's age, and is not true of other fields of engineering. I'll be astounded if software isn't folded into Professional Engineering by mid-century.

That seems highly optimistic. Most software developers are vehemently opposed to the professionalization of their industry.

Of course they are. Most software developers wouldn't pass a PE exam. Professionalization of software engineering won't be done from the ground up. It will be imposed form the top down.

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

#126

Post by jrs235 »

flowerlad wrote: post #115
function_seven wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defend his client. It's the government's job to establish the guilt of the accused. It is not the defendant's advocate's job to help out. The actual guilt or innocence of their client is not a concern—legally speaking. Ensuring that they get a fair trial, and are afforded all the process due to them is. A defense attorney will poke whatever holes they find in the state's evidence, in their theory, and in their conduc…

How can you do that without lying? "My client is not guilty..." is already a lie.

"My client is innocent until found/proven guilty."

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

#127

Post by flowerlad »

jrs235 wrote: post #126
flowerlad wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you do that without lying? "My client is not guilty..." is already a lie.

"My client is innocent until found/proven guilty."

You are not going to convince the jury with a statement like that. You have to offer "alternative facts". Tell the jury it may have been someone else that committed the crime (even though you know that's not true.) Tell them your client wasn't present at the crime scene. And so on. Presenting a robust defense for a client you know is not innocent and sticking to the truth are fundamentally incompatible. In real life defense lawyers aren't known for their truth telling. Everyone knows this and expects this. Which is why this article from ABA is simply grandstanding.

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

#128

Post by lmilcin »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #99
lmilcin wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well... certainly not omissions. The job of a lawyer is not to lay down facts but to know and understand the law and use the knowledge to argue on behalf of their client. It is prosecutor's job to lay down facts without lying or omitting. In fact lawyers have obligation to omit facts when it is a wish of their client.

Yes, that's why this thread is talking about lawyers being unethical in helping people break the law and escape justice.

I don't exactly see it this way.

Every person has a right to defend themselves. Even guilty ones, because until proven, how would you decide they are or they aren't guilty to figure out they have right to defend?

Most people don't know the law enough to adequately defend themselves. Even though you have the option, you would usually be well advised to use help of somebody that knows the law very well because knowing it is their profession and helping you is responsibility.

Just think about this, half of the population has intelligence below mean (ha! not average! but close). You need to generally be highly intelligent to be able to adequately dispute and represent yourself in a court.

So while I loath the fact that criminals use lawyers to escape prison I also recognize that this is their right and that lawyers serve an important function in a society the same way policemen who stop you for speeding or tax auditor looking through your papers do.

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

#129

Post by dodobirdlord »

lmilcin wrote: post #87
dodobirdlord wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but in a reasonable world "lies and omissions" ought to result in disbarment.

Well... certainly not omissions. The job of a lawyer is not to lay down facts but to know and understand the law and use the knowledge to argue on behalf of their client. It is prosecutor's job to lay down facts without lying or omitting. In fact lawyers have obligation to omit facts when it is a wish of their client.

The scenario I’m quoting from seemed like it was a lawsuit. In that scenario I think it’s clear that omissions could reasonably be grounds for disbarment. I happen to think that filing a sufficiently brazenly frivolous lawsuit should result in the lawyer who filed it being disbarred. Whether or not a lawsuit is frivolous can easily hinge on omitting information, like suing someone for trespassing on your property but leaving out of the filing that they have an easement to travel on your land. If a lawyer agrees to file such a suit for their client, knowing that such an easement exists, they should be disbarred for it.

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

#130

Post by parsimo2010 »

noisy_boy wrote: post #86
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…

> And this on no small matter: it is about hiding that the plaintiff died before the trial. And it is not clear whether it is ok or not. I think the scenario in question had the complaining witness dying. Is a complaining witness same as plaintiff? I would think the plaintiff in this scenario is the state. Genuine doubt as I'm not a lawyer.

They the same thing with possible procedural differences (what they get called depending on the type of case) in some places https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaintiff

Legally speaking they are different, but to the layperson they mean the same thing (both are the ones on the opposite side of the defendant).

Post reply on HN