In season #1, Mickey was representing an accused murderer in a high profile case. The individual who really committed the murder gets himself signed up as Mickey’s client at his office on another matter, then tells him that he committed the murder his innocent client is accused of.
This has actually happened at least once. At very least, a lawyer in this situation must withdraw from representing the murder client, because he cannot defend him zealously if he is prevented from revealing evidence that would prove that client innocent. He can’t reveal it because that information is a confidential communication from another client. I hold that a lawyer in that situation must withdraw from both representations, because he is likely to hold such animus against the guilty client that he is unlikely to do his best job representing him. (Hating your client’s guts is a serious conflict of interest.)
Mickey, clever dog that he is, resolves the problem by tricking his murderer client into revealing his crime to the police. The scumbag’s arrested, and his innocent client has the charges dismissed against him. But a lawyer can’t do that. He can’t use a client confidence to the detriment of the client or for the benefit of himself or a third party, in this instance, the innocent client.
I know what the writers and even some lawyers might say: Mickey’s solution serves the interests of justice. The bad guy got caught, and the innocent mad was exonerated. But if clients can’t trust their own lawyers not to sabotage them because it just seems like the right thing to do, then clients can’t trust lawyers. At very least, what Mickey did to solve his problem deserved a long suspension, if not disbarment.
Another little detail is that only a lawyer can form an attorney-client relationship. Mickey’s office can’t “sign up a client” all by itself. Apparently he needs some brushing up on Rule 5.3, which holds lawyers bound to educate their non-lawyer staffs regarding legal ethics.
Ethics Alarms 
Did the actual murderer contract that Lawyer’s firm in bad faith to ethically trap the lawyer? Would such a scenario change the ethical duties involved?
Yeah he did, but had a colorable need for representation. His motive wouldn’t let the LL off the hook.
If only the lawyer can form client attorney relationship then if the admitted murderer got his timing wrong with engaging the lawyer, the lawyer could present that testimony and subpoena the man?
A local bank is the single biggest client of the law firm where I work, but bankruptcies are the most frequent type of case we handle for individuals, so the office manager and I are always checking the Documents folders on our computers to see if a defendant the bank wants us to proceed against was a bankruptcy client of ours. (Likewise, if we’re already representing the bank in a collection or foreclosure against a would-be client, the attorneys will tell them that we can’t represent the would-be client, whether as defense counsel in the collection or foreclosure, or as their bankruptcy attorney.) I’ve also overheard our attorneys telling clients in other types of cases that no, they can NOT represent both sides, no matter how well the first side to contact us gets along with the other side. Basic legal ethics and common sense!
If both sides get along that well, then why the lawsuit? Or maybe they just need arbitration…
Did they even address the conflict in that episode?
I don’t remember that episode but that is a surprisingly bad story (overall, I like the Lincoln Lawyer and can disregard the unrealistic legal elements). You could not get halfway through reading the standard rule on conflicts of interest without concluding this is not permitted. It’s not even plausible. Yet plausibility or “close calls” are what make for more interesting drama because it can reveal the character’s character. Here, he just looks like a bad lawyer who either did not know the rule, or simply decided to ignore it.
-Jut
They did. Mickey’s ethics guru, as you know,is old Elliot Gould. He told Mickey in no uncertain terms that he had to withdraw from his innocent client. Mickey said, “Well, maybe there’s something else I can try.” I thought he was going to try to claim the real murderer wasn’t a client because of the botched retainer, but no, when the guy admitted the murder, he believed he was a client because of the staff’s incompetence, so his confession was confidential.
I haven’t watched the series, so I don’t know how much Haller’s background diverges from the books. Bosch and Mickey have the same father, but different mothers. In the books, Mickey’s mother was Mexican, but I think he was brought up in California. It has been a while since I read them, so I may be a bit rusty on the details.
I wasn’t basing my comment about Mickey’s change of ethnicity on the books, but the movie, which is how most viewers know the character. In the book he’s from California, but in the series he says he grew up in Mexico, where his mother was an actress.
I remember criticizing Haller’s solution to that problem.
Here’s the setup as I remember it: Haller was working with another client and/or witness who could identify the murderer.
To get the murderer to reveal his guilt, Haller deliberately left information about the witness where the murderer would find it. Haller gave the witness an oblique warning and had the police watch her apartment, which could have gone very wrong and almost did. The witness only survived because the murderer stopped to gloat before the police burst in.
I don’t think the problem was providing the murderer with information that would motivate him to commit more crimes. I would be surprised if lawyers were forbidden from mentioning true information that could prompt their clients to commit a crime. That might prevent them from discussing the witnesses at all, since there’s theoretically a motive to silence those witnesses.
However, putting another client/witness in danger by revealing her file to an outside party without her express permission was unethical and an enormous risk.
No, the problem is setting a trap for your own client. Can’t do that: there’s a rule against it in many jurisdictions. If Mickey dropped his other client, which he had a duty to, then his unethical conduct in giving his remaining client information he knows he will use to incriminate himself becomes clear. It’s a breach of loyalty.
If a lawyer suspects that a client will commit a crime against the lawyer’s advice, what lengths is the lawyer expected to go to to prevent the client from committing the crime? And isn’t a lawyer obligated to report a crime they know will be committed in the future? How does those rules interact?
A lawyer doesn’t have to do anything about a client’s planned crime, unless the client is using the lawyer’s services in order to commit it. In only two states does a lawyer have to report when he KNOWS a client is going to kill somebody.
A lawyer is not obligated to try to stop a clients future crime or report it if the information is confidential.
Gotta love the office in the back seat of a Lincoln Town Car. My good friend and last tax partner was brilliant but pretty seriously OCD. He would provide tax advice over the phone in his office while playing poker on his computer. He loved to drive. He would drive non-stop for fourteen hours from Phoenix to Cabo San Lucas just to deliver vehicles for a client. He’d schedule lunches with clients an hour’s drive each way, just so he could drive. We decided what he really needed was to set up his office in an RV. His paralegal could ride along, and he could talk with other clients while driving. He’d always be on the move, and he could drive to and pick up clients, and they could ride along during their appointments while he DROVE.
All kidding aside, OCD is a brutal disease.