Lawyers: their lips dont flap?

[Creeping Death]

Sets say somebody somewhere does something illegal and gets caught. He knows he's guilty, but there is a chace that he could avoid punishment. So he gets a layer to defend him and so on.

Should he tell his lawyer the truth, or should he lie like he would to the cops? Basicly im wondering if lawyers have some kind of duty to defend you even if they know you're lying to the cops.

[ProtectedByTheGods]

He's got to tell his lawyer the truth.
The lawyer has always to defend his client.
Otherwise, what good would he be?

[Broshious]

Originally Posted by ProtectedByTheGods

He's got to tell his lawyer the truth.
The lawyer has always to defend his client.
Otherwise, what good would he be?

I've always wondered about the idea that a lawyer must in all situations defend his client. If you KNOW your client is a crazy, evil, fucker, and you are almost certain that he won't be convicted based on the evidence...what would you do?

[Felonious Skunk]

I imagine you could ask to be removed from the case. There will (almost) always be a lawyer with no such scruples to take your place.

[Broshious]

Originally Posted by Felonious Skunk

I imagine you could ask to be removed from the case. There will (almost) always be a lawyer with no such scruples to take your place.

But you still know the guy is guilty and will not be convicted so he will be free to rape/kill again.

[Felonious Skunk]

^^^^ Agreed. But we have set up a legal system by which a defendant's conversations with his lawyer are bound to be confidential and he has the expectation that anything he says to his counsel(s) remain just that unless he gives permission otherwise.

If this were not the case, then why go through the whole process of trial when the lawyer could just decide guilt or innocence?

A lawyer's job is to attempt to get a legal outcome that is best for his client, regardless of guilt or innocence. There are rare cases where dangerous people get let off the hook only to injure or kill once again, but this is not the lawyer's fault. These fringe cases are an unavoidable result of a system of representation that seems to work pretty well in ensuring that all criminal defendants are able to confront the accusations of a prosecutor.

It's ridiculous to point the finger at a lawyer when these unusual outcomes occur no matter what a client may have said in confidentialty. The public often gets upset when the guilty go free, but this just means it has no understanding of the elements of the system that are designed to protect everyone's rights. To me, when the guilty go free it's a good sign because then theoretically the innocent will be going free as well (though of course we all know the system is imperfect and it can work the other way as well).

And as the system is imperfect, there will always be cases where the guilty are acquitted and the innocent are convicted. We cannot expect otherwise.

[UberDouche]

That reminds me of the old addage: Never lie to your doctor, your lawyer or your priest.

Otherwise, why seek their help at all? (I know, there are myriad reasons why one might lie to these people, but I am assuming that one wants to be helped by the above mentioned people.)

[Kodi]

because when lawyers defend people whom the public thinks is guilty it gives them a good rep

[Bikelbees]

This thread is misleading (UK)! Your lawyer cannot defend a client as not guilty if you tell them that you are guilty. The best that he could do is to allow you to enter your plea of NG and not allow you to give any evidence at all, he could say my client chooses to put the Crown to proof as the case is weak there is no reason why he need bother to give evidence. It doesn't mater whether the lawyer thinks you are guilty or not, its that he acts on your instructions, if you tell him you are innocent he will accept it even if it looks 99.99% likely that you are lying. He may ask you to sign a document that you are going NG against his advice, but conversely, if you say that you have done it then he cannot allow you to deny it on oath. He would have to withdraw from the case without dropping you in it, he could say that for professional reasons he must withdraw, and then you get another lawyer who is fresh. So, either lie to the lawyer, or tell the lawyer the truth and if you dont like his advice of going guilty (early GP usually = more discount on sentence), then sack him and get another lawyer. If your lawyer knows that you are guilty he can defend you on the basis of a guilty plea which does not necessarily have to accept all of the prosecutions case, he can defend you as far as mitigation is concerned. Most crime lawyers know that there is no "F" in justice and don't care if a guilty client gets off, in any case "guilt" is a legal term, so a client that is aquitted is strictly NOT guilty even if they did it and he was always not guilty of any offence!

Reputation Comments on this post:

	excellent as usual
	Useful information

[robertone]

In western society it's common that the Justice Department has to proof that the accused is guilty. This is done to avoid random sentences and random punishments without an centence at all, like it was common some centuries ago. Revolutions happen mainly if the public can not bare the injustices anymore.

For the same reason many western countries have some clauses in the law to avoid random action of it's legal system. That's why a known guilty person can walk away as free man from the court if it turns out that the investigators tapped the accused phone without an proper permission or withheld his rights in some way (didn't read his rights at arrest for example).

A very wide spread misunderstanding is that these clauses are there for the accused rights. This is not the case! This clauses are there to protect the civilians in general against randomness of their government. A protection that these days parish more and more in the name of suppression of terrorism and violence. People forgot that every totalitarian state in history was preceded by restrictions of civil rights before coming into power!

To answer the question of the thread: Never tell a lawyer more then neccessary, he only has to know what is needed for ones defence. However, this can imply the knowledge that one is quilty.

[Bikelbees]

Any lawyer is bound by the same rules - I quote myself from earlier, IMO the last post is misleading

Originally Posted by Bikelbees

This thread is misleading (UK)! Your lawyer cannot defend a client as not guilty if you tell them that you are guilty. The best that he could do is to allow you to enter your plea of NG and not allow you to give any evidence at all, he could say my client chooses to put the Crown to proof as the case is weak there is no reason why he need bother to give evidence. It doesn't mater whether the lawyer thinks you are guilty or not, its that he acts on your instructions, if you tell him you are innocent he will accept it even if it looks 99.99% likely that you are lying. He may ask you to sign a document that you are going NG against his advice, but conversely, if you say that you have done it then he cannot allow you to deny it on oath. He would have to withdraw from the case without dropping you in it, he could say that for professional reasons he must withdraw, and then you get another lawyer who is fresh. So, either lie to the lawyer, or tell the lawyer the truth and if you dont like his advice of going guilty (early GP usually = more discount on sentence), then sack him and get another lawyer. If your lawyer knows that you are guilty he can defend you on the basis of a guilty plea which does not necessarily have to accept all of the prosecutions case, he can defend you as far as mitigation is concerned. Most crime lawyers know that there is no "F" in justice and don't care if a guilty client gets off, in any case "guilt" is a legal term, so a client that is aquitted is strictly NOT guilty even if they did it and he was always not guilty of any offence!

[beentheredonethatagain]

egg poacher is giving bad advice here. there are times when telling your court appointed lawyer the truth is un advisable , but to speak in absolute terms is very wrong.

[Alfa]

How do you feel about creative speech in private talks with your lawyer (granted that some trust in the lawyer would need to be there), in such a way that one would not incriminate him/herself, but the lawyer would be able to read between the lines and thus providing the lawyer everything that needs to be known for a good defense?

[Bikelbees]

That specific question Alfa is dealt with in matters of professional conduct. A lawyer may only hypothetically discuss various options and scenarios with the client in so far as they dirctly relate to the facts of the case or likely relevant outcomes. The lawyer cannot suggest defences even hypothetically and if the client is fishing for a suitable line it would be wrong for the lawyer to effectively coach the client by advising on a series of suitable (or otherwise) defences suggested by the client.

I think the limit would be for the lawyer to illustrate what he is trying to explain to the client about his evidence with an example. Eg if they client doesn't understand what is meant by "intention" in respect of a possible theft charge, he could say (although be careful that if the client jumped on this suggestion it would be dubious) that the police must prove that you intented to leave the shop with the item, if it had fallen into your bag by accident for example, there would be no criminal intent. Possibly safer to use examples in entirely differnt scenarios - the more crafty clients would be able to pick up on this and it is true that some regular clients expect this as part of the service. Certainly a lawyer would be exposing himself here as if as has happened quite often it goes pear-shaped in court, the client may say to the court that the lawyer had told him to say that and then we are into at least a judical humiliation in the judges chambers if not a repremand in open court, complaints to the Law Society and possible disciplinary action. Having said that, some clients are solid gold and maybe some lawyers will go the extra mile for them. Its difficult for practitioners to respect the law entirely any more than some clients respect it. As far as worrying about nasty people being on the streets, well that is certainly a social problem and I personally have given up on any criminal justice model doiung anything about it. When I see people go down for years for involvement in drugs in just makes me sick and there is nothing the defence can do, its all court of appeal guidelines, so, although it would be a case of SLWIM, I can personally see why there is no moral problem in lawyers doing their best for a client in a siutuation where the law is oppressive and stacked against the client - although of course its also problematic for anyone to behave with autonomy in the system which is supposed to be applied equally and fairly.

[ramjet]

In the UK, solicitors are bound by a legal duty not to mislead the court. As such, if their client tells them something that runs contrary to the defence they will be running in court, the solicitor may be professionally embarrassed, which means they would have to stop acting for their client. For example, they could not call their client to the witness box knowing that their client was going to lie, although they might still be able to act if their client was not giving evidence (or if they were pleading guilty).

Practically speaking, it may be better to keep your mouth shut. Ethically speaking ... well, that may be a different matter, but since when have lawyers been ethical?

[old hippie 56]

The last lawyer swim had didn't want to know the truth, just the evidence. He told swim that a few times.

[Pondlife]

Yes, in the UK (and maybe other countries as well), lawyers have a professional code which prohibits them from lying. Therefore if you tell your solicitor or barrister something, they cannot pretend to believe the opposite in court. Also as Bikelbees has mentioned, lawyers are not allowed to coach their clients on what to say.

However, in reality there are lots of ways around both of these problems. Once tactic that I've heard of goes like this: a person is arrested, charged, and then (very sensibly) demands a solicitor. When the solicitor arrives, the conversation goes like this:

Solicitor: "Don't say anything, let me explain the situation. You have been charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to supply. Broadly speaking, there are three possible defenses to this charge" (goes on to outline the three defenses).

Client: "Yes, that's it - it was all for personal use"

Solicitor: "OK. For a successful personal use defence, we will need to convince the magistrates that ..."

[Creeping Death]

Thanks for info.

[mictihtoya]

How the hell does anyone get found not guilty in the UK if their lawyers aren't allowed to know they're guilty and lying?

[Pondlife]

Originally Posted by mictihtoya

How the hell does anyone get found not guilty in the UK if their lawyers aren't allowed to know they're guilty and lying?

The UK has an adversarial system of justice, where each party has an advocate (a barrister) and there is a neutral party who determines the outcome (magistrates for a summary offence, or a jury assisted by a judge for an indictable offense).

This URL has some useful information about the adversarial system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system

For a criminal conviction to succeed, the prosecution's advocate must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The defense need do nothing, but may (and generally do) try to refute the prosecution evidence.

A barrister or solicitor may well believe that the defendant is guilty, but that does not stop them defending them. The only potential issue is that they must not knowingly deceive the court; so if they know (not just believe) something, they may not claim the opposite. As a few people have mentioned, there are plenty of ways in which the solicitor will try to ensure that they don't come by this knowledge.

So, the prosecution can fail by either being unable to prove its case to the satisfaction of the jury, or by the defence introducing sufficient doubt.

There are also many procedural rules, and failing to follow them can result in the case being thrown out. This is known as the case failing "on a technicality", and it happens more often than you might think. The defendent's advocate can help here as well, by challenging the prosecution's adherence to the procedures, e.g. "so you cannot swear that you placed the alleged substance in an evidence bag as soon as you found it?" (faces the jury and raises eyes to heaven).

Finally, in my view, a lot of the cases where the prosecution succeed do so because of what the defendant said during questioning. My advice is that once charged, keeping your mouth shut and asking to speak to a solicitor is the smart thing to do.

[beentheredonethatagain]

I remember a case where a man was arrested for child kindnapping, rape and murder.
The body wasn't located but they had their man, the lawyers who were sumbags and were latter disbarred, tried to shift the blame to someone else, pointing fingers at the parent of the dead little girl. The preditor was connvicted and prior to sentencing the sumbag lawyers pleading for their client to not be sent to death row, offered up a plea for life in prison by disclosing the location of the body . Well the deal was struck and the little girl's body recovered. Then it was quite clear that the defense was aware of the guilt of the man on trial , and they had no shame to try and get an inoccent parent instead of the real killer, making up theories all the while knowing this animal had been the nasty child rapist and killer. Those who hide the truth and will stop at nothing to win the freedom of a demond should be hung.

[robertone]

@beentheredonethatagain

Well... as far Swim knows rapist, special an child rapist, won't have a live in prison and would be better off dead. There are some dark age punishments that comes in Swim's mind if he thinks about these kind of low lives, but then again the only justification for dead sentence would be protection of the society and not [personal] revence.

But don't forget that a lawyer also have the responsibility of taking care that the justice system will be functional. So every time he is defending [knowlingly] a guilty person with all his tricks, he is also defending Swiy's civil rights. More simply: If he can not succeed to get a guilty acquitted because the police got all the evidence at an illegal way, he also failed to protect you and all other civilians against their own government.

By the way, the question of 'mictihtoya' remain unanswered, it was specific about the UK.

[robertone]

@bikelbees

Well... as far Swim knows rapist, special an child rapist, won't have a live in prison and would be better off dead. There are some dark age punishments that comes in Swim's mind if he thinks about these kind of low lives, but then again the only justification for dead sentence would be protection of the society and not [personal] revence.

This sentence was is as a sarcasm on beentheredonethatagain's post. The last part of the sentence is to put the matter straith.

Personally Swim is against death sentence, however, he can imagen situations where such will be ineluctable. And in cases where such is inevitable the sentence should not be carried out by injection designed to let the convicted suffer, like in the USA.

And again back to the topic: One has to be able to talk like a lawyer to communicate with a lawyer. One has also to know what to tell and what not, it's a matter of need to know and nice to know - same system the Department of Justice is using towards their persecuters. Unfortunately this capability is only given to a few.

[Bikelbees]

I agree with the latter sentiments Robertone, but I am surprised that so many contributors are jumping on the reactionary child abuse panic and finding easy consensus and moral comfort in the "hangings too good for the scum" cliches.

One person looking at images of nude adolescents online can go to prison and yet UK pilots who drop bombs on the babies of other nations usually get medals and nice pensions.

[Triple7]

SWIM knows a case where witness were protected by several undercover cops. SWIM heard lawyer of the defendant tell confessions by defendant and witness to the defendants to the police. During court, the defendant and witness to defendant denied what their lawyer had gossiped to the police. The case wasn't about drugs. The lawyer to the defendant made a very good job, but to SWIM that was just acting, since SWIM knew about the gossip.