Defense Attorney Ethical Duty

The defense and prosecuting attorneys question the defendant to learn the circumstances of the offense. After carefully listening to the facts,

In 1982, Alton Logan was charged and sentenced to life in prison for the first-degree murder of a McDonald’s security guard in Illinois after three witnesses identified him despite the fact that several family members gave testimonies stating that Logan was home in the bed when the murder occurred (CBSNews, 2008). Around the same time attorneys Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz were defending a man named Andrew Wilson was facing similar charges in the same jurisdiction who confessed to them that he killed the McDonalds security guard, and that Alton Logan was innocent (CBSNews, 2008). The two attorneys, being bound by the Attorney-Client Privilege and their duty of confidentiality to their client they did not come forward with the information that could have relieved Logan from the charges and his life sentence. Wilson gave the attorney’s permission to disclose the information upon his death and they took necessary measures to preserve the information until the time came when they would be able to share it (CBSNews, 2008).

Evidence may be presented by the prosecution in a manner intended to place the defendant at an unfair disadvantage. This evidence is a violation of his or her right to due process and right to fair trial when it is discovered to be untruthful and haphazardly presented to the jury (Zalman, 2008). This information can include a misleading testimony in which a witness withholds vital information that will negatively affect the defendant. Additionally, the prosecution can allow a testimony from a witness that is misinformed or ignorant, which can affect cross-examination from the defense. Since the purpose of cross-examining the witness is to obtain information that will weaken the testimony, a misinformed witness does not provide the defense with a useful basis (Zalman, 2008). Evidence presented by the prosecution must be researched and found truthful. The 1963 case of Brady v. Maryland illustrated misconduct on behalf of the prosecution in withholding evidence from the defense during pretrial proceedings (Zalman, 2008). Brady and his companion, Boblit were prosecuted for murder (Brady, 2010). Brady confessed to the prosecutor that he was at the scene of the murder, however did not actually commit the act (Brady, 2010). The prosecution received a written confession from Boblit that agreed with Brady’s statements, however did not present this portion of the evidence during the pretrial (Brady, 2010). Consequently, the Maryland Court

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

The basic duty of an attorney, as an officer of the court, is to serve as the accused's counselor, which is another name for attorney, and advocate with courage and devotion and to render effective, quality representation. Attorneys are an essential component of the administration of criminal justice. A court properly constituted to hear a criminal case must be viewed as a tripartite entity consisting of the judge (and jury, where appropriate), counsel for the prosecution which is the Prosecutor, and counsel for the accused, the attorney. Defense counsel should seek to reform and improve the administration of criminal justice. When inadequacies or injustices in the substantive or procedural law come to defense counsel's attention, he or she should stimulate efforts for remedial action. (American Bar Association,

Steven, I agree that an attorney’s obligation is to do what is best for their client. Attorneys generally shoot for a high offer leaving room for negotiation. If attorney White was hired under a contingency fee, then he would only get paid if he wins the case for his client. Typically, when hired under a contingency fee attorney will make thirty three percent of the plaintiffs recovery. Therefore, many attorneys would use the document they found intermixed to their advantage during

A Defense Attorney’s position can be very tedious as he faces several challenging facets in his job that can only be accomplished by him. It is worth noting that when he a client approaches a attorney and the attorney accepts his case, he stands by him. The duty of the attorney in such circumstances is to prove the client’s innocence, or else in

Court appointed attorneys constantly face ethical and moral conflicts in their position of authority The toughest calls could be considered those that challenge professional ethics and personal ethics. When attorneys accept to the duty to represent a client, they have an ethical duty to protect confidential information obtained through attorney-client meetings. However, how do attorneys respond when an accused murderer admits to a crime that has previously been committed and is currently being investigated? Can an attorney break the attorney-client privilege bind or should they continue to represent a client they know is guilty? Can justice, if at all possible, be discovered from either ethical dilemma? This paper will not only answer these questions but it will also discuss the legality of client confidentiality. The 1973 “Buried Bodies” case will be used to explain and analyze the legal bind attorneys must uphold as well as how ethics, both

Moreover, privilege is essential to maintain effective legal advice through the lawyers’ promise of privacy and honest client disclosure.9 And by giving there attorneys all applicable information, clients enable their lawyers to give them the widest array of legal advice as possible.10 In addition, given the law’s intricacies, privileging attorney-client communications enables a client to put forth his or her best case.11 The attorney-client privilege is especially important in a criminal case, where the government can use all of its powers against an individual, and the stakes are higher than in a civil context.12 The defendant or criminal should not be denied the opportunity to enable his lawyer to compete adequately in the adversarial

What I just revealed to you is the most valuable information you’ll ever read or hear concerning the attorney/client relationship. If you follow the script that I’ve laid out for you, you will position yourself as an individual who really cares about his clients.

The paper is a description of what role ethics and morals play in the life of a Defense Attorney. While having to support his client a defense Attorney more often than not would have to prove the prosecution’s witness to be fake. The paper deals with the techniques that are followed by an Attorney to protect his client and it gives us an idea of the numerous strategies that he would have to adopt to prove his client in the right. Further, the paper is also a discussion upon facts as to whether an Attorney can purposely cross question a witness, and mislead the court just to prove his client not guilty. Here the main purpose of the argument starts with the fact whether a defense attorney is ethically right when he decides to purposely cross-examine the prosecutor’s witness just to mislead the court, when he knows that the witness is saying the truth, and does so only to discredit his answers.

It was a drug trafficking case, and C has prior convictions for similar offences. Briefly, the drug investigation branch found C at home with almost $10,000 in cash hidden in his underwear, and flushed remnants of methamphetamine in his toilet. Nick and I were convinced that C needed to plead. However, when it got to trial, * J gave the prosecutor a particularly difficult time because, as it became evident, the prosecutor had effectively no evidence: no samples had been taken from the sink that C had allegedly used to flush drugs down. A trained police dog that had run to the bathroom, and knelt down to indicate the presence of drugs. This came an enormous shock to the courtroom. I had assumed that the prosecution had had some solid evidence to go to trial with, and I believe that Nick had similarly overlooked the lack of evidence. Nick’s client was annoyed and said, “You wanted me to plead guilty!” By a stroke of luck, Nick’s client escaped unscathed. Nick jumped on Her Honour’s observations and a nolle prosequi resulted. This was a valuable lesson for me because I realized that sometimes matters that appear obvious (for example: the absence of evidence) might go unnoticed, even through a number of good hands at the DPP. It is for you, then, as a lawyer, to ensure that the state, at all stages, is held to a high standard.

When looking at the works of different legal ethicists there are a variety of perspectives presented on whether the concern of legal ethics is the morality of lawyers, the morality of clients or the morality of law, with some arguing that it is concerned with all three. The content of this course has focused primarily on the morality of lawyers and this was the concept that I struggled with most.

As an attorney it is his or her job to make sure the client is at ease and their privacy is being protected. The legal profession has many components in order to be a successful attorney. As attorneys there are ethical dilemmas that correspond with being an attorney. These dilemmas include conflicts of interest, staff-management, attorney-client advocacy, and professional responsibility. The main ethical issue with attorneys is the Matter of Integrity. These attorneys are trusted with personal information, and as the attorney it is his or her job to maintain that trust. When a client comes in and asks for help, the utmost privacy should be given. The choices that these attorneys make should be solely based on what is best for the client and their integrity is not diminished in any way. Utilitarianism is the best philosophical approach to combat the ethical dilemmas those in the legal profession would face. The idea of “the greater good mentality” is in the legal profession, there comes many choices to be made in regards to the client.

As a lawyer, their personal and ethical values should not influence how they feel about a case but must be set to the side to best represent their defendant. Lawyers must defend their client, even if they feel like they are guilty and represent them the best way they can in the court of law and prove the defendants’ innocent. Every defendant has a right to counsel, a right to an attorney, and a right to a fair trial. Lawyers support the laws on the books and enforce the laws in action because it is about representing their client to their best ability. As a lawyer, it is important to protect the client’s interests and encourage them to tell the truth although the truth can hurt them sometimes in some cases.