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

81–90 of 146 posts

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

#81

Post by throwaway_pdp09 »

kwanbix wrote: post #79
ovi256 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

re "Had a complaint filed against me personally earlier this year." - unfortunately, the fact that the plaintiff's lawyer painted that picture is what's expected, and required of him. He advocates for his client, in the best way possible. Painting the most favourable picture for his client goes with that.

twisting the truth shouldn't be expected.

Do you disagree with "Painting the most favourable picture for his client goes with that"

Semi-related but very valuable advice, if well-known - when I was off sick the council brought a complaint against me. They actually lied and implied criminal behaviour (fraud) on my part (also not turning over all the evidence to the tribunal that followed). So here's the important bit:

DO IT IN WRITING AND KEEP COPIES OF EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING YOU WRITE, EVERYTHING THEY SEND YOU. INSIST ON IT BEING ON PAPER (NOT TELEPHONE), AND PRINT EMAILS OUT.

I could rebut almost everything bad they said about me. The tribunal threw out their case before I even turned up.

(I know this is obvious and everyone says get it in writing, but things would be smoother if people actually did).

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

#82

Post by tsimionescu »

dehrmann wrote: post #58
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.

Yup:

> Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, R. Todd Marshall and Larenda R. Delaini, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Richard A. Levy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.

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

#83

Post by implements »

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.

Have a read of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab-rank_rule

In a nutshell, English barristers must accept cases from anyone regardless of their circumstances or character otherwise “an unpopular person might not get legal representation; barristers who acted for them might be criticised for doing so”.

“Justice” is the result of the process by which trials are fair - is one way of looking at it. Contrasted with the view that once we know who the bad people are (how?) guilt is presumed and summary punishment is all they’re entitled to.

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

#84

Post by fortran2003 »

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 impression that the difference between a lawyer and a layperson is that the lawyer just is more up to date with what was made up in court recently.

In fact, to me that sounds like exactly what you would expect in a common law system.

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

#85

Post by sokoloff »

bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #49
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…

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…

It’s fairly clear to me that maximizing punishment ought not be the prosecution’s goal and I’m not even sure that it’s currently the goal. It seems like maximizing conviction rate is closer their apparent goal.

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

#86

Post by noisy_boy »

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.

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

#87

Post by lmilcin »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #80
ovi256 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

re "Had a complaint filed against me personally earlier this year." - unfortunately, the fact that the plaintiff's lawyer painted that picture is what's expected, and required of him. He advocates for his client, in the best way possible. Painting the most favourable picture for his client goes with that.

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.

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

#88

Post by dependenttypes »

ikeboy wrote: post #74
dependenttypes wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 don't suck.

You would be surprised. I do agree with the rest of your post however.

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

#89

Post by sokoloff »

yardie wrote: post #13
flowerlad wrote: post #8

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

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 significant driving factor.

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

#90

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

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…

Same could be said for software developers.

While I am aware of the audience here, I'm not trolling. There is a remarkable similarity between the "helplessness/vulnerability", for lack of a better term, of clients using a lawyer and the helplessness/vulnerability of users in using software authored by someone else (not to mention clients who hire software developers to write software for them). In each case, the client/user is required to trust the lawyer/developer.

One key difference is an issue sometimes discussed on HN:- there's no licensing requirement for developers. Lawyers have to be licensed, and the licensing requirements include ethical obligations, violations of which can result in losing one's license. While this system in practice may have some shortcomings, software developers do not have anything equivalent. There are states in the US where lawyers are disbarred every month, but I am not aware of any software developer who has been banned by a regulatory body from writing software for use by others.

Both lawyers and developers are probably subject to negative stigmas as as a result of the "bad apples". Not all are unethical.

Post reply on HN