Wanna help a brother out?

[gentleben]

Hello escapists.

I'm a law student, and it would be a big help to me if you could take one second to fill out a quick survey on legal ethics. The results of this survey will form part of my assessment for this semester, namely a presentation I will be giving on the differing attitudes of those with formal legal training and laymen with what would be considered by many to be common morality.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFJCTS1oczVQXzA3VHpzczJla3ZnY1E6MQ#gid=0

Thanks in advance for your input.

 

[Erja_Perttu]

Interesting dilemma. Considering the last question and its implications, from a moral perspective there's only one answer, but I'm going to assume in practise there are a lot of other factors to think about from a legal perspective.

 

[The Night Angel]

Interesting, hard to know what you'd actually do though.

 

[bobmus]

Good questions, but to be honest if I was a lawyer I don't think I'd say anything. Not a lawyer though, so guards - arrest that man!

 

[gentleben]

If you're interested, there is really no right answer. The easy answer is "no" to every question - you shouldn't tell anyone about what your client told you because your client has a right that you not divulge any information about his case with anyone. The hard answer (for lawyers) depends on the jurisdiction that you are in. In my jurisdiction, there is a rule that, in the even of an inconsistency between your duty to your client and your duty to the court and the administration of justice, that your duty to the court and administration of justice prevails. If you think that clears up the matter you (in my opinion at least) then need to ponder whether "the administration of justice" is better served by preventing one man from going to jail for a crime he didn't commit (some would say that's the ultimate failing that a legal system can make) or is better served by ensuring that all potential clients feel comfortable sharing potentially damaging information with their lawyers, which is one assumption that is at the very heart of an adversarial legal system. This last point brings with it the potential for a greater number of cases reaching trial as clients withhold information that is damaging to their claim (that would cause a good lawyer to advise their client that the probability of their success in a matter was low, and hence that they pursue other avenues) for fear that full and frank disclosure to their counsel may somehow work against them.

In short, it's a noodle-scratcher.

 

[gentleben]

Oh, forgot to mention, this is a real case. If you'd like the facts on it (as presented by 60 minutes), they are available at the bottom of this post. Alton Logan stayed in jail for 26 years, while 2 lawyers had a prepared and signed affidavit from their client stating that he had committed the crime. Unfortunately for Mr Logan, they decided to wait until their client died to come forward with the evidence (I'm not judging them for their action, I believe this is the action that a very high percentage of lawyers would have taken in the same situation).

 

[Mayhaps]

If the client tells me he was the murderer, even though I didn't ask him (doesn't say I did, and why would I?), one could assume he feels some sort of guilt. To talk to him and try to convince him that he should confess seems like the best option.

I might be reading the question wrong though.


Captcha: high horse