Client Attorney Privilege : The Code Of Silence

These two statements present clear support for the conclusion that Wasserstrom believes lawyers are positioned in an amoral world. The second conclusion is defended by many statements and situations concerning the lawyer?client relationship. Wasserstrom identifies a few dominant traits with in this relationship containing inequality, created by role-differentiation, and vulnerability.

Another strong ethical issue was the huge confidentiality issues that involves Susan and Savannah’s family. Susan reveals information about Savannah’s sessions while she was still in a medically induced coma, so clearly there was not permission to do so from Savannah or from a legal stance. The Code of Ethics prohibits this kind of behavior and as a social worker is not acceptable.

". . . the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." —Chief Justice Earl Warren, speaking for the majority.

The court held the psychologist responsible for the murder of his girlfriend and for not informing of the intent to harm. I believe Justice Tobriner said it best, “the protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.”

     This case had to do with an Ernest Miranda who raped a Patty McGee*. After extracting a written confession from the rapist about the situation, Miranda’s lawyer argued that it was not valid since the Phoenix Police Department failed to read Miranda his rights, also in violation of the Sixth Amendment which is the right to counsel. Some factors that helped support Miranda’s arguments were that the suspect had requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with a lawyer; the suspect had not been effectively warned about his right to remain silent; and an incriminating statement must have been given by the suspect. The author of the Arizona court’s decision, former U.S. Senator and

If an attorney or judge cries when hearing a sad story from a witness it might be perceived as unprofessional. A Dr. shouldn’t express anger toward a nurse in front of a patient.

Arizona decided that if a person requests counsel and wants to deal with the police through counsel, they can no longer be questioned until counsel is appointed to them, (Holland, p. 392). This was upheld during Michigan v. Jackson regarding criminal defendants who had been appointed attorneys at a court hearing and were later contacted by the police without the attorneys being notified. This court case ruled that any waiver of the right to remain silent would be invalid unless the defendant was the one who initiated the conversation with police. Furthermore, it solidified that even though a defendant waives his fifth amendment rights to remain silent, it does not waive his sixth amendment rights to counsel, (Holland, p. 391). Supreme Court case Montejo v. Louisiana overruled Michigan v. Jackson, stating that the police are able to speak with criminal defendants even when an attorney is already appointed to him if the defendant gave a waiver of his right to counsel. The reasoning behind this ruling is that it is the defendant’s responsibility to assert his right to both counsel and his right to silent if contacted by the police at any point.

After giving all of the information to be used against him, he then realized what his probation officer had previously told him about his rights; he then became silent. It was a little too late to become silent because he had already sketched everything out involving the murder. Once the case was being heard by the court, it was revealed that Michael had indeed waived his rights to be silent because he understood what the officers were saying to him, but everything should have ceased after he later asked for his probation officer but was denied the privilege to speak with him

The purpose of rules of ethics that attorneys are obligated to abide by is to protect the Attorney-Client Relationship and enable full disclosure of information that is necessary for lawyers to provide competent representation in favor of their client. Confidentiality and the Attorney-Client

As this case grew fame in the supreme court of Arizona. These rights were created to create a form to protect the right of a suspect to remain silent, since this right was abused regularly since suspects did not know their rights. This led to a lot of unthoughtful and unfair decisions based of only prove.

The main argument introduced in the debate considers whether a practicing solicitor can adhere to the traditional values of moral and ethical integrity that have been reinforced through a set of principles such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct (SRA). The latter consists of ten mandatory principles that are the professional requirements expected of any solicitor. Traditionally, ethical and moral truthfulness have formed the basis of a competent lawyer and thus when adhering to the traditional principles placed upon lawyers, a lawyer was thought to abide to moral standards. I will aim to tackle the debate by arguing that the SRA provides a framework that allows lawyers to be good people. Secondly, I will also be discussing a lawyer’s moral responsibility. and that whilst ‘The lawyer is conventionally seen as a professional devoted to his client’s interest and…required, to do some things for that client which he would not do for himself’ his moral responsibility must not violate the SRA Code of conduct. Finally, it is imperative to explore the ethical dilemmas solicitors face when attempting to make their clients’ interests their own.

Attorney Client Privilege, which originated in Roman and canon law, has evolved into a recognized judicial doctrine and is necessary in order to provide clients with access to effective, well informed counsel. In Upjohn Co. v US the Supreme Court the Court

Attorneys are to represent their clients as members of a legal profession. As long as there has been an attorney-client case, there has been disputes regarding the attorney 's loyalty to their clients. Ethically, the adverse action implicates important professional values which include the obligations of legal professionals to provide services to those that need them, to become fully informed regarding legal matters to ensure competence, and to hold confidential clients ' communication. The attorney should always be truthful as well as trustworthy. According to Banks, “trust is an aspect of professionalism, and the encouragement of trust has become a fundamental characteristic in a professional relationship because

Question #9. What is the ethical obligation of a litigation support staff member to the client? To the court? Of a litigation support person from outside firm or consultant?

One client called to tell us that they would be taking the minor children out of the state, to hide them from the other parent. This is a direct violation of the order. They are essentially telling the attorney that they are kidnapping the children. This places the attorney in an questionably ethical situation. Can she call the police to report this, or is it covered under attorney-client privilege? The attorney strongly advised that her client not do what she said she was going to. Another client tried to conceal their finances. Most divorce cases also have to being with filing a Domestic Relations Financial Affidavit. This document shows each parties income, account balances, debt, and assets. The client provided statements that showed the balance of their retirement accounts. Somehow, two transactions occurred after the filing. Two separate fifty thousand dollar withdrawals had been made against the account. The client tried to hide one hundred thousand dollars from the divorce settlement. This begs the question, did opposing council know of these transactions? One source identified that “in terms of the Fairness Principle, the ethical issue attorneys most often face in negotiation practice is probably the issue of truthfulness and misrepresentation” (Saito, 2017, pp. 333). This sources states that there is not a ethical question. If the attorney knew that their client removed the funds, it is illegal. The source states