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

41–50 of 146 posts

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

#41

Post by jldugger »

daniel-thompson wrote: post #23
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…

> Source: Lawyers wouldn't have the reputation they do if all the members of the club had integrity. Somewhat off-topic, but here's a mind-boggling example of a lawyer's lack of integrity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Murphy

Is that the best you can do? One can almost argue if you have been disbarred, you are no longer a lawyer. Though I guess that didn't stop the Air Force from hiring the guy to be a lawyer, then praising and promoting him multiple times.

Here's a more recent and IMO better one: https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/04/28/former-apple-lawy...

> Former Apple lawyer Gene Levoff, who oversaw the company's Insider Trading Policy as corporate secretary and senior director of corporate law, was on Thursday indicted for insider trading and faces a maximum penalty of 120 years in prison. > Ironically, Levoff was in charge of enforcing the blackout period as part of Apple's wider trading policy and would sometimes conduct illicit trades after notifying others of the restrictions.

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

#42

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#43

Post by austincheney »

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…

While the difference in source material can be a wide gap as you described the bigger difference that people commonly point at is ethics.

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. As a case in point all lawyers have a general understanding of the word ethic and how it applies to their profession. I have found, as a long time software developer, that most software developers have no idea what that word means and are quick to make faulty assumptions regarding its application. In the software developers’ defense there is not a lot of reason to accurately understand a thing that has never existed in the first place.

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

#44

Post by throwawaygh »

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…

> the lawyer just is more up to date with what was made up in court recently.

...and not even that. I've been told several times by very senior lawyers to ask a senior technical person for advice on thorny software licensing issues. In one case that senior technical person pointed me to a recent decision that basically answered exactly the right question.

IME/IMO, lawyers are vastly over-estimated, vastly over-respected, and have far too much political power relative to other stations in this country. We need to reform our legal system from the bottom up so that it serves us instead of the guild.

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

#45

Post by ROARosen »

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…

>These are interesting scenarios, but let's not forget that the rules are only binding under the threat of being caught and punished

This reasoning can be used for anything ranging from speeding to stealing to even murder.

Obviously the article was examining the intersection between "the law as written" and the ethics surrounding this issue.

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

#46

Post by harlanji »

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…

I’m in this very situation.

OpenTable vs. Iverson, 4/20/2020, Santa Clara.

It’s been a saga of massaging the optics, very interesting to see the 3 requests evolve. #1 I was never served, #2 they bluffed and didn’t show up, #3 was utter slander and filed in a new county (SC, first 2 in SF proper over the course of a year). Head screw, it hurts to try to recall it all. It’s also extremely offensive to read. It’s put a serious mark on me, both credibility and also the private investigator(s) following me everywhere, hence being homeless and isolated. The original issue was an improper firing (where UI was granted, and it was improper compared to their own training).

Biz@harlanji.com. I have the latter 2/3 of the filings, and my response that I couldn’t file and a BAR complaint written (I wasn’t seved #1 but #2 references it).

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

#47

Post by anamax »

Should prosecutors be able to add incriminating statements to a confession transcript? (I'm talking about damning statements that the defendant didn't make.)

The CA Attorney General at the time said yes. A CA Appeals Court said no.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1695398.html

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

#48

Post by throwawaygh »

austincheney wrote: post #43
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…

While the difference in source material can be a wide gap as you described the bigger difference that people commonly point at is ethics . 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. As a case in point all lawyers have a general understanding of…

> 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.

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

#49

Post by bobbylarrybobby »

nordsieck wrote: post #25
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. 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…

And that a lawyer's job isn't even to ensure that the law is enforced. A defense attorney's job is to get the defendant the least punishment possible, regardless of what the defendant actually did and the legality of such action. The prosecution's job is to seek the the most punishment possible. In a criminal case, a fair outcome hinges on the two lawyers being roughly equally skilled and resourced, but if this isn't the case then the case will be a blowout; but it's still the winning lawyer's job to crush their opponent without mercy, which in any other context (e.g., sports) would be considered scummy. Unfortunately, that's just the job.

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

#50

Post by pabs3 »

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

Post reply on HN