legal ethics

Brian Banks’ Lawyer’s Dilemma: The Ethics of Counselling An Innocent Client To Plead Guilty

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Would Wanetta have eventually admitted her lie if Brian Banks had been sentenced to 40 years? Would you bet your life on it?

The understandable uproar over Brian Bank’s five year imprisonment for a rape he never committed has focused public attention on the wrenching situation where a criminal defense attorney feels he must counsel an innocent client to plead guilty (or no contest, in Banks’ case) when the only alternative appears to be conviction at trial and a harsher sentence.  Banks’ attorney persuaded him that five years for a crime he didn’t commit was preferable to a maximum of 40 years if he was found guilty.  Was that bad advice? Was it unethical advice? Continue reading →

Now THIS Is An Unethical Lawsuit (And a Bonus Ethics Quiz!)

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

A perfect lawsuit for Jackie!

Not legally unethical, mind you, oh no no no! Remember, a lawyer is not unethical when he brings a crack-brained lawsuit as long as he can muster some vaguely plausible theory to support it. Even if he thinks the case is a long-shot of long-shots, if the lawyer has a good-faith belief that it could prevail without violating the natural laws of time and space, it’s “ethical.” Thus it is that the lawyer for the victims of a car crash caused because the teenaged driver of the other vehicle was reading a text message from his girlfriend can ethically bring a lawsuit against both the driver, Kyle Best, and his girl friend. Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: The Strange Case of the Illegal Lawyer

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

“Hey Fred! Here comes your attorney!”

Sergio Garcia was brought across the Mexican border into California, at the age of 17 months, by his illegally immigrating parents. Thanks to the muddled and inconsistent enforcement of its immigration laws, Garcia graduated from Chico State University, a Florida law school and passed the California State Bar exam in July 2009., all while being in the country illegally. Now a special committee of the California Bar has recommended that he be licensed to practice in the state, but the California Supreme Court has reservations, and wants to read briefs on the issue. That issue is also the Ethics Alarms Quiz this weekend, and I must admit, it is a question I never thought would rise to status of a debate:

Should an illegal immigrant be allowed to practice law? Continue reading →

When Unethical Approaches Evil: The Clarence Aaron Pardon Fiasco

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Clarence Aaron, waiting for justice

I read about Clarence Aaron four days ago. It has bothered me ever since. The short version of this horror story is that a young man, outrageously sentenced to three consecutive life sentences for a drug offense despite being a first offender, was poised to receive a pardon from President Bush but did not, because the Pardon Attorney charged with job of presenting the case to the President inexplicably left out critical  information that would have all but guaranteed his freedom. The attorney’s name is Ronald Rogers: he was the Pardon Attorney under Bush, and is still in that post today.

I have been trying to figure out what ethical breach would describe what Rogers did, a difficult task in the absence of an explanation from him. Was this incompetence? Laziness? Was it a lack of diligence—was he careless? Did Rogers sink Aaron’s case because he doesn’t like blacks, or doesn’t like drugs, or doesn’t like pardons? Does he lack empathy? Sympathy? A heart? Continue reading →

New Passengers on the Roger Clemens Ethics Train Wreck

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Hey Andy! Listen to that guy behind you…you won’t believe what he’s saying about you!

First, an Ethics Train Wreck recap, before we get to yesterday’s developments:

The Roger Clemens ethics train wreck officially started rumbling down the tracks in 2008, when Major League Baseball’s Mitchell Report, itself something of a train wreck to begin with, revealed that Roger Clemens’ trainer, a rather shady character named Brian McNamee,  had told the investigative commission that he had injected the pitching great with banned performance-enhancing drugs, or PED’s. In rapid succession there was ethics carnage everywhere. Clemens, under the pretense of inquiring about the health of his former trainer’s child, who was gravely ill, tried to get the trainer to admit he was lying. Congress, absurdly, called a special hearing on the matter. Clemens visited select Congressional offices beforehand, which tainted the objectivity of questioning. The Congressional committee, rather than seeking to illuminate the Clemens dispute or the status of PED’s in baseball, instead decided to take sides, with Republicans defending Clemens (a Bush-supporting Texan) and the Democrats seeking his scalp—facts had nothing to do with it. Clemens, meanwhile, made several dubious statements, and showed his class by telling the world that his wife, not he, was the PED-user in the family. A few months before, Clemens prevailed upon his friend Mike Wallace, then in his late 80’s and semi-retired, to tarnish his reputation as a tough and objective truth-seeker by tossing soft-ball questions to Clemens on CBS, so the pitcher could deny his drug use to a famously skeptical interviewer who was, in fact, thoroughly conflicted. Continue reading →

The Plagiarist Strikes Back!

/ Jack Marshall / 35 Comments

Move along, Atticus. Nothing to see here, and I wouldn't want you to barf.

Well, some of you called it. I was a sap. I expected better.

Mary Frances Prevost, the California criminal law attorney who substantially expropriated an Ethics Alarms post and placed her name on it, responded to my request for an explanation, and failing that, an apology, a retraction, and proper credit, with this (on her Facebook page), in which she said, in part:

“I received a histrionic run-on-sentence email from someone named “Jack Marshall” today accusing me of committing crimes, threatening to report me to my bar association(s), the Inns of Court, and essentially spend your days and nights harassing me.” I have also viewed a a highly unethical rant published purportedly by you on a blog suggesting strongly that I have engaged in unethical conduct throughout the entire course of my career. I have counseled with one of the country’s premiere ethics attorneys. Here’s the result: 1) accusing me of a crime is defamation per se and unethical; 2) suggesting that my entire law practice has been based on unethical conduct is defamatory and unethical. I maintained copies both of your email and blog. It is clear that you are hell bent on engaging in systematic harassment and unethical conduct, the likes of which can, and most likely will, develop into a lawsuit unless rescinded forthwith. It is clear you have little to do in your life besides sent me emails accusing me of crimes, and writing poorly written blog posts accusing me of immoral behavior. Interesting how one making such claims, engages in most egregious conduct himself….But the sheer amount of energy really suggests something more: a lack of work; too much time; off your meds. I suggest you take a look inward and remove your defamatory and unethical blog post regarding me. Indeed, you should come clean on your blog. You’ve practiced law only two weeks before giving up. Yet, your resume suggests far more experience. I think you should rethink what you’ve done.”

Now how do you like that? Continue reading →

Is a Plagiarist a Trustworthy Attorney? Let’s Ask Mary Frances Prevost!

/ Jack Marshall / 46 Comments

This is me, apparently.

San Diego criminal defense attorney Mary Frances Prevost has an interesting post on her blog about the ethics of George Zimmerman’s first set of attorneys.

MINE.

You wouldn’t know it was mine, of course, because blogger/attorney/ former Washington Post journalist Prevost has slapped her own name on it. There it is, right at the beginning: “by Mary Francis Prevost.” I think that’s interesting.

Her post, entitled “The Trayvon Martin Case Trainwreck: George Zimmerman’s Attorneys Need To Shut Up!”, was posted the same day as the Ethics Alarms post, “Next To Board The Trayvon Martin Ethics Train Wreck? Why, The Lawyers, Of Course!”, which began, coincidentally enough, by quoting John Steel’s post from the Legal Ethics Forum that read, “[S]hut up, guys. Shut the h*** up.”  It was two introductory paragraphs later, however, when “her” post got into the substance of “her” analysis of the ethical problems with the farewell press conference given by George Zimmerman’s attorneys shortly before the shooter of Trayvon Martin was charged, however, that I really began getting a serious dose of deja vu, also known as “Holy crap! This woman stole my article!” Continue reading →

The Messy Case of the Courageous/ Zealous /Inept/ Dedicated/ Venal/ Lying/ Unethical/ Ethical Lawyer

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

The courtroom chaos of Gilbert and Sullivan’s “Trial By Jury” was nothing compared to this!

One thing we do know for sure: the lawyer was rushed. And therein lies much of the problem.

This mind-blowing scenario, that could have easily been an episode on “Boston Legal” or “Ally McBeal,” occurred in California.  After a week long trial in a personal injury case where the brain-damaged plaintiff’s lawyer had asked for millions in damages, jurors  deliberated only four hours and announced they’d reached a decision. Both lawyers were certain a defense verdict, against the disabled man, was coming. Plaintiffs attorney C. Michael Alder pulled defense counsel  into the hallway for last-minute settlement negotiations, hoping that the defense would agree to some damages as insurance against a surprise plaintiff’s verdict. With his developmentally disabled client (who had suffered brain injuries in a fall from an ambulance) and his mother by his side, Alder exchanged figures and rejections with   defense lawyer James Siepler, who had an insurance claims adjuster on his cellphone.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Johnson was impatient, for the jury was ready to give its verdict. Literally at the last second,  Alder and Siepler agreed to a  $350,000 settlement, and returned to the courtroom. “The parties have advised me that they have reached a settlement of the case,” the judge informed the jurors, adding, “They will be happy to talk with you out in the hallway to get your views.”

They got the jurors’ views, all right. The jurors told the attorneys that they were going to award the plaintiff 9 million dollars. Continue reading →

Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Ethics Train Wreck Post-Bail Update

/ Jack Marshall / 103 Comments

Sadly, still with a good head of steam...

George Zimmerman has been released on $150,000 bail, prompting more ethical misconduct from the media and the lynch mob on the Left:

  • Cable news was reporting that Martin’s parents are “devastated” at the news of Zimmerman’s release. They should not be devastated that an innocent man (in the eyes of the law) is not being forced to stay in prison for more than a year to await trial, and the fact that they are suggests that vengeance, not “justice”, is their true objective. Meanwhile, for CNN et al. to be reporting this as if releasing a defendant on bail is some kind of gift to Zimmerman or affront to Martin’s family is irresponsible and provocative. The news organizations have an obligation to explain that bail is based on the likelihood that the defendant is not a danger to others and not a flight risk. Zimmerman is neither: he turned himself into police as soon as he was charged, and has ties to the community. In America, we do not keep people in jail before they have been convicted unless it is absolutely unavoidable. Citizens interested in ‘justice” should not be devastated when any fellow citizen is afforded freedom up to and until his guilt of a crime has been proven. It is a right they may need themselves some day. Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce, Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Ethics Train Wreck Division: Mansfield Frazier

/ Jack Marshall / 24 Comments

"Do the right thing, George. Or else."

Mansfield Frazier, whose name I was blissfully unaware of until I read his astounding opinion piece in The Daily Beast, thinks that in order to prevent another set of deadly riots along the lines of what occurred when the police who beat Rodney King were acquitted, George Zimmerman should be persuaded to accept a prison sentence without a trial by jury of his own. “The time is now for strong hands to take the helm and steady the ship of state—not to mention our national racial, political and legal discourse. The paramount concern has to be to avert a large-scale racial calamity.” he writes.

No, the paramount concern is for the justice system to give George Zimmerman the same due process of law, same fair trial, same guaranteed legal defense and same right to a trial before his peers as any other citizen accused of an alleged crime that has not been used to fan racial hate and suspicion on MSNBC. Those concerned about potential race riots should look to the people who irresponsibly lit the fuse to ignite them, and order them to snuff out the flame. Those concerned should observe the actions of the Florida prosecutors, who have given every indication that they either have no valid case or are incapable of presenting one. They should seek to discipline a national news media that has misinformed the public about the case, stating that there were elements of racism and profiling in Trayvon Martin’s death when the evidence so far firmly establishes neither. It is not George Zimmerman’s responsibility to sacrifice his freedom to prevent a social calamity that was not and will not be of his making. Continue reading →