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

51–60 of 146 posts

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

#51

Post by flowerlad »

jrs235 wrote: post #16
flowerlad wrote: post #8

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.

If the defendant does not want to plead guilty then the attorney cannot plead guilty on behalf of the defendant.

"This morning the Supreme Court overturned a Louisiana inmate’s death sentence because the inmate’s lawyer – hoping to save his client’s life – had told the jury that the inmate was guilty, even though the inmate had expressly objected to that strategy."

See: https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/05/opinion-analysis-court-ru...

If the defense attorney cannot concede guilt -- but knows client is guilty -- what is he supposed to do?

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

#52

Post by austincheney »

throwawaygh wrote: post #48
austincheney wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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

#53

Post by anon9001 »

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.

That may be true in theory, but in practice most lawyers will protect other lawyers, and their regulatory bodies do very little to discourage bad actors.

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

#56

Post by sooheon »

beervirus wrote: post #9
notafraudster wrote: post #4

I was bummed to see the examples, which I reproduce here to highlight their obviousness (or their, uh, being noncontroversial): 1. Can a lawyer who suspects the opposing party of breaking an agreement engage in plain-clothes trickery to figure out if that's true? Yes. 2. Is a lawyer obligated to essentially testify [respond to a judge's inquiry] in a manner that incriminates their client based on private information?…

I think 3 turns on the fact that this is more specific than just “information that would inhibit prosecuting the case.” That would include exculpatory evidence, which the prosecutor would have to turn over.

If a fact need not be disclosed in the midst of prosecution, why is it a requirement to prosecute in the first place?

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

#57

Post by ctheb »

jldugger wrote: post #41
daniel-thompson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Po…

> According to prosecutors, he used that information to seek unjust enrichment through a series of beneficial stock trades that generated $227,000 in profits and avoided $377,000 in potential losses.

This seems like a trivial amount of money for someone that high up to jeopardize their career or spend years of their life in prison for. I would maybe even understand the risk/reward if it was in the tens of millions but this sounds nowhere close.

I am genuinely curious to know if this happens regularly - what is the real motivation for committing a crime that barely pays relative to the penalties?

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

#58

Post by dehrmann »

anamax wrote: post #47

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

I can't quite tell, but Kamala Harris might have been the AG in question.

That wasn't what the AG argued; the AG argued that case shouldn't be dismissed on those grounds. The question is closer to if the prosecutor adds incriminating statements to a confession transcript, is that grounds for dismissal.

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

#59

Post by justinclift »

gamblor956 wrote: post #38
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.

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.

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

#60

Post by vkou »

shakna wrote: post #26
daniel-thompson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

It doesn't even need to be due to "poor" intentions, either. For example, a lawyer who thought she was doing the right thing and protecting many people has caused endless problems, both legal and moral, and likely ended up protecting (by tainting the case against) the very people she sought to bring to justice. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Gobbo#Lawyer_X_scandal

Given that she became an informant after the police gave her the choice of becoming a snitch, or getting the book thrown at her, I don't think she had any illusions about whether or not she was a scumbag.
Post reply on HN