zealous representation

Ethics Quote of the Day: Ken, of Popehat

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

“Listen to me: a law school calculated to make students feel good about themselves is as ridiculous as a Marine boot camp designed to make enlistees feel good about themselves. Law students, God help us, will one day be lawyers. When they are, nobody will care about their self-esteem. The prosecutors seeking to jail their clients will not be seeking to foster a sense of community. The opposing civil lawyers seeking to bankrupt their clients will not be promoting a culture of dignity and respect. Most law practice is about conflict. It’s a bloody, ugly street fight. Self-esteem borne of law-should-be-harmony is useless to clients. The only self-esteem useful to clients is self-esteem earned by hard work, determination, command of the subject matter, and the willingness to stand up to adversity. People who object to law professors being wickedly Socratic, and classmates being cutthroat, are missing the point. If you’re put off by a Socratic professor, Mr. Fluffy Bunny, a run-of-the-mill judge is going to make you soil yourself. If nasty, backstabbing classmates upset you, the first time you get into a nasty letter-writing campaign with an opposing counsel you’re going to have a breakdown. Law school is not a fucking spa day. It’s training to stand between your client and whatever the world throws at him.”

—– Ken, the astute lawyer/sage/Don Rickles of the libertarian social commentary website Popehat, excoriating the University of St. Thomas Law School for, among other things, extolling the values of self-esteem, collaboration, harmony and community among their students.

What Ken is really talking about is zealous representation, that once universally accepted bedrock of the  lawyer’s duty that has gradually fallen into disfavor with many academics and lawyers. Continue reading →

Ethics Hero: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Earlier this year, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie had come under fire from  conservative bloggers for appointing Sohail Mohammed, an American attorney who also happens to be a Muslim, to a seat on the Passaic County Superior Court.

Mohammed was confirmed by the state legislature and sworn into office last week. The Newark Star-Ledger noted in an editorial that Mohammed came to the US— legally— as a teenager in 1980, and became a lawyer for all the right reasons. It was, for him, a calling. He built a reputation as a zealous, honest and dedicated lawyer.  Yesterday, Gov. Christie defended his choice, especially against criticism for representing Muslims detained under suspicion of terrorist links in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001. His most quoted passage:

“It’s just crazy, and I’m tired of dealing with the crazies. It’s just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background. I’m happy that he’s willing to serve after all this baloney.”

In sharp contrast to many in the Republican Party and on the political right, Christie is courageously displaying his full-throated support of religious freedom, opposition to bigotry, the right to zealous representation, and respect for professionals who do their jobs well, whatever their names or ethnic origin.

He is an easy call as an Ethics Hero.

The Ethics of Stopping the Condemned From Accepting Death

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

In Oregon, a judge has granted death row inmate Gary Haugen’s motion to dismiss his lawyers after they persisted in taking measures to block his execution. They had declared he was not mentally competent to waive his appeals and allow his own state-decreed death to proceed.

Leave it to lawyers to be convinced that they know what’s best, even when it involves someone else’s wishes about his own life and death.

Is the condemend prisoner who approves of his own excecution insane, or courageous?

In an attorney-client relationship, the lawyer is ethically bound to do what the client wants as long as it is legal and within the bounds of the ethical constraints on the lawyer. A lawyer can render advice and should; a lawyer can explain the legal consequences of a course of action. But substituting the attorney’s judgment for that of the client is taboo…except, all too often, in cases like this one, in which a death row inmate decides that letting justice take its course and accepting the state’s death decree is preferable to rotting in prison.  Continue reading →

“He’s Suffered Enough”: Ethical Lawyering, Dubious Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Attorney Barry Wilson is undoubtedly doing his job, and it is a tough one: arguing for the justice system to do less than throw the book at Boston’s disgraced former Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner, who richly deserves it. This is the lawyer’s sacred duty to a client that makes the profession the butt of jokes and the object of contempt, but it is an ethical and systemic necessity.  It also can be stomach-turning in cases like Turner’s. All Wilson has in his defense arsenal is the hoary “he’s suffered enough” argument. It is always ethically dubious, and this time it boarders on ridiculous.  Continue reading →

Googling Potential Jurors in Court: Not Unethical, Just New

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

I sometimes facetiously tell legal ethics classes that the average judge is ten years behind the average lawyer in technological acumen, who is five years behind the average 13-year-old. The law and legal ethics consensus is always playing catch-up with technological developments, and every time technology is put to a new or unexpected use in a trial, some judge may react to it like a Cro-Magnon encountering his first flame.

This happened recently in the case of Carino v. Muenzen (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.) During jury selection, plaintiff’s counsel began using his laptop computer to go to the Web and seek  information on prospective jurors. Defense counsel objected,  and the following exchange took place: Continue reading →

Exemplary Ethics: Opportunity for the Gambling Grannies’ Lawyers

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

My discussion of that sad case of the two elderly Connecticut sisters who are embroiled in a lawsuit over lottery winnings did not focus on their lawyers, and that was intentional. Though I spend most of my time teaching legal ethics, I only venture there on Ethics Alarms rarely, because 1) to do it right usually requires being technical, and technical is not conducive to 700-1000 word essays, and 2) most lawyers are bored by legal ethics, so non-lawyers figure to be bored even more.  A new reason became crystal clear this week, when I foolishly steered an issue involving blog ethics into legal ethics because the blogger happened to be a lawyer, was reckless with my terms, and ended up unfairly implying something I did not mean to imply. My apology for that fiasco is here.

Nevertheless, I should have discussed the role of lawyers in the Connecticut case. I am not privy to their advice to their respective clients, and for all I know, they may well have attempted what I suggest here. Whether they did or not, this case is an excellent one to reflect on what lawyers do, and ought to do. Continue reading →

Slap-happy Justice in West Virginia

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

I confess: I love this story.

The Charlestown Gazette reports that Assistant Kanawha County prosecutor Stewart Altmeyer has been suspended for one month without pay for suggesting a plea deal that permitted the victim of petit larceny to slap the defendant in exchange for dropping the complaint against Dallas Jarrett, who had allegedly taken a few Oxycontin pills from Deborah McGraw’s medicine cabinet while performing some household repairs for her.

Altmeyer says that he relayed McGraw’s offer half-seriously, and was taken aback when the one-slap deal was accepted by Jarrett and his attorney. He shouldn’t have been surprised: Jarrett was facing up to a year in prison. I’d take Deborah’s slap. Heck, I’d take a Mike Tyson slap. Wouldn’t you? Continue reading →

The Ethics of Letting a Lying Defendant Testify

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

It’s snowing like crazy outside, and I’m stuck putting the lights on a nine-foot tree.  My only escape from the pine needles assaulting my tender skin is ethics reverie, and I find myself thinking, once again, about the classic criminal defense attorney’s ethical challenge:

What do you do when your guilty client wants to claim he’s innocent in the witness chair, under oath? Continue reading →