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

91–100 of 146 posts

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

#91

Post by ovi256 »

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.

But there is no truth in an adversary justice system (and I'm not sure about the other systems either). There are only the parties' differing perspectives (if they were not differing there wouldn't be a complaint) and a court ruling at the end, which we take for impartial.

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

#92

Post by codesections »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #90
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 clie…

> 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)

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

#93

Post by AmericanChopper »

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…

If you think defence lawyers are tricky, wait until you find out about prosecutors...

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

#94

Post by michaelt »

ovi256 wrote: post #91
kwanbix wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

twisting the truth shouldn't be expected.

But there is no truth in an adversary justice system (and I'm not sure about the other systems either). There are only the parties' differing perspectives (if they were not differing there wouldn't be a complaint) and a court ruling at the end, which we take for impartial.

Imagine I receive a letter from a lawyer saying "It appears your product A infringes our client's patents B and C"

That's fairly clearly a statement of fact - that in their professional opinion they believe their client has a reasonable chance of prevailing in court.

Do lawyers not have an obligation to display good faith and professional candour in making such statements of fact, even to their adversaries?

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

#95

Post by kovac »

tuukkah wrote: post #64
kovac wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yeah it is. But what I was more interested in is what an individual lawyer might be thinking in that scenario. What I asked was a more specific question. Place where I live in, first degree murder carries death penalty. So, I was wondering what a lawyer would do/think if she knew for certain that her client committed an act that qualifies as first degree murder (e.g. He confessed to her). Because then as far as the justice system concerned, the outcome of a fair trial would be death penalty and she as the defendant would be trying to circumvent that. Not sure why I'm down voted, I genuinely asked her out of curiosity.

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

#96

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#97

Post by caro_douglos »

michaelt wrote: post #94
ovi256 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there is no truth in an adversary justice system (and I'm not sure about the other systems either). There are only the parties' differing perspectives (if they were not differing there wouldn't be a complaint) and a court ruling at the end, which we take for impartial.

Imagine I receive a letter from a lawyer saying "It appears your product A infringes our client's patents B and C" That's fairly clearly a statement of fact - that in their professional opinion they believe their client has a reasonable chance of prevailing in court. Do lawyers not have an obligation to display good faith and professional candour in making such statements of fact, even to their adversaries?

Lawyers love to send letters. They also can fold when your attorney responds letting them know that the letter’s assertions are incorrect.

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

#98

Post by srtjstjsj »

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 (especially cheap ones like the lawyers mentioned above) would fail to get optimal results in complex scenarios like presented above, just like the lawyers.

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

#99

Post by srtjstjsj »

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.

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

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

#100

Post by srtjstjsj »

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…

> The prosecution's job is to seek the the most punishment possible

This is absolutely false and is also unconstitutional.

Post reply on HN