As a lawyer, I have often had clients waive the attorney-client privilege. If you are going to defend against a claim by saying that you were relying on the advice of counsel when you did what you did (which is evidence that you were acting in good faith and without criminal intent), you have to waive the privilege in order to disclose the advice.
It appears to be part of LTC Lakin's strategy here to rely on the advice of his former counsel in mitigation of punishment. From the blog post linked above:
"During the providence inquiry, there was significant questioning concerning the legal advice that LTC Lakin had received. Judge Lind asked LTC Lakins civilian counsel Neal Puckett whether he was comfortable with her making such inquiries. He replied that he encouraged it. He said the defense would be raising the legal advice given to LTC Lakin (probably during the sentencing case), so it would be better to address it during the providence inquiry than have to reopen the providence inquiry when the defense raised it later."
What kind of lawyer allows his client to testify to privileged information, olddeck?
“If you are going to defend against a claim by saying that you were relying on the advice of counsel when you did what you did (which is evidence that you were acting in good faith and without criminal intent), you have to waive the privilege in order to disclose the advice.”
387 posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 7:23:57 PM by Lurking Libertarian
More nonsense. The bad advice of Lakin’s lawyers does not mitigate his guilt in any way.
It is obvious that you two are ignorant of the law, but perhaps you have heard the saying that “Ignorantia legis neminem excusat,”, i.e. ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.
Lakin waived his right to appeal when he plead guilty and the bad advice of his lawyers does not mitigate exposure. In fact, Pucketts bad advice is increasing Lakins exposure, i.e., Lakin testified that Jensen advised him that I cant ethically advise you to disobey those orders.