Can the lawyer still effectively represent the client? Or, is client better of lying to his lawyer and the whole world?
2006-07-18 11:30:21 · 6 answers · asked by Go-Girl 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
VolleyballChick is partially correct. Lawyers have a duty to the client to preserve all confidential communications and all secrets gained through representation. Lawyers also have a duty of candor to the court, and cannot knowingly present false information.
However, a plea of "not guilty" is not the same as saying a client didn't do it. It's simply requiring the prosecution to prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. So, a lawyer can represent a client, even if they know the client did it. In fact, that's part of a lawyer's ethical duty of representation.
It's true that the lawyer cannot flat out say "my client didn't perform the actions of homicide", if the lawyer knows that statement is untrue. But the lawyer can raise reasonable doubt, and in fact they are required to do so.
The only time a lawyer can generally withdraw from representation is where the client is either going to use their assistance to commit a future crime or fraud, or where the client insists on committing perjury and requiring the lawyer to help.
Depending upon the state (since professional responsibility rules vary) a lawyer may not even be able to stop his client from committing perjury, and may be ethically forbidden from notifying the court if the client commits perjury. At that point, the only thing the lawyer must do is refrain from assisting in the perjury (not asking specific questions) and the lawyer cannot reference the perjured testimony in any way.
The entire purpose of the duty of confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege is so that clients can be truthful about past crimes, and thus get appropriate legal advice. If lawyers could not represent clients who they knew were guilty, the entire adversarial system would break down.
2006-07-18 15:21:05 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Typically, a lawyer isn't supposed to divulge items discussed between their client and themselves. But they do have a lawful obligation that they can not lie to the court. So if they KNOW for a fact that the client did kill a man unlawfully, they would have to either plead out the client and have him admit guilt, or they would have to allow another to represent the said client. It would be an offense for them to go into a court of law and represent their client as if he/she did not do the crime. He would not be able to state anything that would say his client did not do the crime. He could offer alternate scenarios as to someone else doing it, or he could defend his client as if they were justified in committing the crime (abuse, self defense, eminent danger, etc.), but he would not be able to state his client did not do it in court. So confessing does limit your defense.
Sorry if I rambled.
2006-07-18 12:03:29 · answer #2 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It happens all the time. The client, even if he is guilty as hell, is entitled to the best defense he can get. Don't you think his lawyers knew that OJ Simpson was guilty?
2006-07-18 11:35:38 · answer #3 · answered by notyou311 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
look, killing someone is not technically illegal. the circumstances are very important. Murder, is illegal. Consulting your lawyer truthfully helps to put on the best defense you can get. Asking your lawyer to hide the fact that you killed someone in cold blood is illegal, and any lawyer won't stand for it.
2006-07-18 11:37:21 · answer #4 · answered by kamkurtz 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The lawyers get money to defend, not to tell the truth.If they start living the truth, they won`t be so wealthy, ....
2006-07-18 11:33:06 · answer #5 · answered by wiseguywisedude 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
OJ you are one funny dude for coming on here.
2006-07-18 11:33:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋