I can't say I agree with the Times' conclusion, which seems to be that poor people should have less of a right to attorney-client privilege than the rest of us.
I could go either way, but certainly not on that basis.
Easy call. I would simply turn in my license and find another way to make a living.
All a lawyer with a guilty client should do is his best concerning the sentencing of same.
I cannot even begin to fathom the hideously depraved depths of a lawyer’s “mind” that could allow such a miscarriage of justice.
Telling what he knew was “ethically permissible and morally imperative” 22 years ago. Some stupid made-up bar association “ethics” rules are no excuse for sitting quietly by while a man you know is innocent is spending the prime of his life in prison. I wouldn’t blame either one of these men released after 20+ years, if they went out and murdered the sorry excuse for a human being who kept mum about their innocence all that time. If I was on a jury I would vote “not guilty” in a heartbeat. Anyone who lets being an ethical, truthful human being take a back seat to being a lawyer, at the expense of 20+ years of someone else’s life doesn’t deserve to live.
Even under these stupid bar association rules, the only penalty one of these lawyers would have suffered for piping up was having to find a different job that didn’t require being a member of the bar. They’ll let an innocent man spend 20+ years of his life in prison, so they don’t have to give up their precious career practicing law??? Sick, sick, sick!!
Somehow our culture has convinced us that lawyers and cops care about helping law-abiding citizens. They don't. At least, that's not part of their job description.
Lawyers work to make sure their clients (whether guilty or not) do not suffer any legal penalties. The police work to put people in jail after they do bad things to good people.
There is a concept in law “standing”, that is the ability to assert a claim or a privilege. I would suggest that the dead client has no standing to object to the testimony of his attorney. The attorney was obligated to defend his client not to preserve the client’s legacy for eternity.
You can not take the word of a self-confessed murderer at any value whatsoever. The testimony is worthless. It means zilch.
(2) There is no way of ascertaining whether a convicted felon who is already serving a life sentence is telling the truth.
(3) Most people would think twice about sacrificing their career and livelihood for something that could turn out to be a lie told by an extremely unreliable individual.
(4) Taylor42, the "law is above people" according to our Founding Fathers' design. No one is supposed to be above the law.
(5) Perhaps some blame is due to the innocent man's defense attorney for screwing up a defense attorney's ultra-rare dream case: one with an innocent client.
Attorney-Client privilege and its cousin "confidentiality" are the backbone of everything. This generally survives death (Supreme Court). It is also the law itself.
Based on strictly the rules of professional responsibility, the judge probably did not have a choice. Under the model rules which are similar to most states, he was OBLIGATED to report the attorney to the bar - or he could be disciplined himself.
I agree with the judge, with reservations. I don't know what I'd do in that situation, but without confidentiality, attorneys can not properly defend their clients, including innocent clients. The right to a fair trial must trump everything since anyone of use could at some point be in court like that Duke LaCrosse team.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“Legal ethics rules vary from state to state, but many allow disclosure of client confidences to prevent certain death or substantial bodily harm. That means, several legal ethics experts said, that lawyers may break a client’s confidence to stop an execution, but not to free an innocent prisoner. Massachusetts seems to be alone in allowing lawyers to reveal secrets ‘to prevent the wrongful execution or incarceration of another.’”
These ethical codes are written by various jurisdictions, and those that write them can write exceptions into them.
It should generally be the case that the ethical codes for lawyers should require that lawyers divulge otherwise-privileged information to prevent the incarceration or execution of likely innocent individuals.
On a similar topic... in my community, there is an association, invitation only, named after a federal judge. Just recently there was a civility award designated and this Wednesday, the first recipiant of that award will be honored at the bar luncheon. I just got the email. Now, here’s what really makes me cranky - several years ago, this judge murdered his wife and killed himself. HOW IN THE WORLD IS THERE CIVILITY IN THAT!!!!