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

61–70 of 146 posts

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

#61

Post by vkou »

sooheon wrote: post #56
beervirus wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's a soft requirement, because the witness will be 'necessary'[1] in court in the particular circumstances of this particular crime. If the prosecutor had a stronger case (Say, a different witness, or CCTV evidence, etc, etc, etc), then this particular witness would not be necessary.

[1] In the opinion of the average criminal lawyer, assuming that the case is litigated correctly, and that the jury isn't entirely composed of utter mouth-drooling morons prejudiced against the defendant.

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

#62

Post by kovac »

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 once asked a high-school acquaintance of mine who had just graduated with a law degree, if she knew someone committed a violent crime, if she would still represent that person in court. Her answer was that even a violent criminal has a right for a fair trial. That sounded to me as evasive as it was rehearsed. I reckoned that this is something they have been taught/justified in law school.

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

#63

Post by aaron695 »

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?…

> No, but this feels scummy.

I don't get the it's bad implied in the article.

Let's say it's a rape, and the victim dies, what's really changed?

You can hate the idea of plea bargains, but that's a different topic.

They admit they are guilty, so proceed on.

If it means they are screwed in challenging it later or in sentencing it might matter, but it doesn't seem the case.

Otherwise, very boring examples. Nicola Gobbo was a criminal lawyer and a police informant at the same time, but hasn't been charged with anything, I feel like there would be a interesting example in there somewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Gobbo

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

#64

Post by tuukkah »

kovac wrote: post #62
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 once asked a high-school acquaintance of mine who had just graduated with a law degree, if she knew someone committed a violent crime, if she would still represent that person in court. Her answer was that even a violent criminal has a right for a fair trial. That sounded to me as evasive as it was rehearsed. I reckoned that this is something they have been taught/justified in law school.

Isn't that the right answer though?

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

#65

Post by vkou »

flowerlad wrote: post #8

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

His job isn't to claim that his client is innocent. His to make the government prove the client's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If we don't require that from the government, the entire justice system breaks down.[1] Because once the government stops being rigorous about its methods for convicting guilty people, it can trivially start convicting innocent people.

[1] Which it largely has, given the ratio of criminal convictions that get plead out, as opposed to being litigated. Plea bargains are a blight upon justice.

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

#66

Post by ta1234567890 »

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 sign, when in reality those contracts left us fatally exposed (and were in great part responsible for the downfall of the company later).

- Had a complaint filed against me personally earlier this year. The complaint has some truths twisted to paint a mostly false story, but it also has plenty of lies and omissions. The lawyer(s) that wrote the complaint knew what they were doing, yet no one is ever going to get punished for it.

- Looking for lawyers to defend the case (and in previous experiences), I realized that most lawyers have certain formulas or patterns they follow for specific types of situations that they already know how to address, if you don't fall into those, then they'll either pretty much fail at the job, not do what they actually should do (sometimes even if you ask them directly), or just refuse you as a client. It is very hard to find a lawyer that will actually take the time to really listen to you, understand your story/situation and then work on a personalized strategy/solution.

I think that any lawyer that intentionally mis-represents stuff in their work, or tries to shoehorn their clients into their formulas, or just half-asses their job, are seriously lacking in integrity. And by my experience, this seems to be the case for 50%+ of lawyers. A lot of them will probably do a ton of damage both to their clients and their counterparties, and they will never be held responsible.

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

#67

Post by function_seven »

flowerlad wrote: post #51
jrs235 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-anal…

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 conduct. They will work to suppress evidence that was gathered illegally, locate witnesses that can testify on behalf of their client, and argue before the jury that the state has not proven their case beyond the legal standard.

I'm sure it's much easier for lawyers when they themselves are convinced of their client's innocence. But when someone comes to you and pays you to advocate for them in court, that's what you do. Your personal opinion is irrelevant.

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

#68

Post by fouc »

kovac wrote: post #62
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 once asked a high-school acquaintance of mine who had just graduated with a law degree, if she knew someone committed a violent crime, if she would still represent that person in court. Her answer was that even a violent criminal has a right for a fair trial. That sounded to me as evasive as it was rehearsed. I reckoned that this is something they have been taught/justified in law school.

The ethics behind this is has been deeply studied and debated, and the "right to representation" is an important right. The system is based on checks and balances, and there's no certainty the violent criminal is guilty for the specific crime they're being charged with.

This is likely related to the adversarial nature of the courts, prosecutors vs defenders. Defenders ethically need to defend equally, basic game theory, aka Prisoner's Dilemma.

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

#69

Post by dependenttypes »

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 do not want to dismiss what you are saying (in fact I find it extremely interesting) but don't 80%+ of people in all professions (or even out in society) just suck? I am more surprised that you consider 50% to be the minimum of bad lawyers rather than a higher percentage.

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

#70

Post by elgenie »

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.

> The bar does not exist to serve lawyers, it exists to regulate them.

Those are far from being in opposition. A cynic might say the bar exists to serve lawyers as a class by doing the bare minimum to appear to be regulating them.

Post reply on HN