Ethics And The Practice Of Law With Being An Attorney

More specifically, the attorney who ran for re-election in 2006, aimed to win this case despite the evidence suggested about the false accusation from the victim. Moreover, the attorney was accused of breaking professional ethics rules by making false statements to the media, thus engaging in “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” (Barstow & Wilson, 2006). He gave the public false information about the findings of the sexual assault examination report and withheld important DNA evidence, which resulted in misleading the court.

The same kind of good evil scenario between the defense attorney and prosecutor’s office is also evident in the television show Law & Order. Although that show does not often portray one side as only good or only bad, there have been times when it has created defense attorney characters who have taken advantage of the law to force the system to completely exonerate their clients, which makes them appear to be evil people who are “cheating” justice. Reality and Fiction: the True View 3 The reality of attorneys on opposing sides of a case is that they are seldom easily identified as good or evil persons and just because they are working for the defense or the prosecution does not indicate the type of person they are (Steinberg). Both are expected to act legally and both have pressures on them that affect their work and who they are. Simply the side they represent does not alone affect the kind of person they are. As to how they try their cases, attorney ethical codes require attorneys to “zealously” pursue their case for the benefit of their client to the extent the law allows (ABA). This means that if a defense attorney sees an opportunity for his client to be set free then he or she must use it because that is their job. It is the job of the prosecutor to assure the defense does not have those opportunities. Again, this does not reflect on the quality of their character. The same thing can also

The Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allen (609 S.E.2d 4, Va. 2005) was a fascinating case. The case focused on two expert witness testifying for the state and the other for the defendant, and if they acted and behaved ethically during the proceedings. Successive information will be addressed to prove the thought process behind my opinion given in this case. The APA code of ethics and specialty guidelines will be used to support my reasoning. Furthermore, they will serve as a baseline of boundaries within the profession to determine the expert witness’ influences to the case as well as their behavior within the profession.

The case Anthony Ray Hinton which reached is prolonged conclusion in 2015 demonstrates what harm can be caused by the inadequate performance of an attorney. Hinton was convicted for a two murders during armed robberies. The only evidence provided by the prosecution during his trial was a ballistic expertise which matched the bullets found at the scene of the crime and the gun of the defendant’s mother. Hinton’s defense attorney failed to provide the funding that was needed for expert witnesses which would have been able to rebut the prosecutions expertise. Anthony Ray Hinton was declared guilty and sentenced to

Even after a defendant has been convicted, prosecutors have an ethical, sometimes legal, duty to preserve a copy of discovery material as well as physical evidence. The prosecutor has an ethical duty to make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of their right to have an attorney present in court. They also have an ethical, legal and constitutional duty to disclose most of the evidence they possess to the defendant once the defendant has been charged with a crime. However, the individual rights of the defendant must be upheld, even if this means that the prosecutor does not obtain a conviction.

The role of trial consultants in each particular case differs. These roles can vary from solely assisting with jury selection to a full range of services including conducting community attitude surveys, determining the effectiveness of evidence that will be used in trial, guiding attorneys through what approach should be taken during the trial, and preparing witnesses to testify in court. The different roles are an integral part of trial consulting as defined by the field of psychology. Field consultants are said to provide insight and guidance on the case through the roles described above. To determine if these roles described are that of the real world this paper will be discussing one case in particular that highlights the differing uses for trial consultants, the O.J. Simpson trial. Simpson was a former professional football player, idolized and known by many, who was tried for the death of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown, and a family friend, Ronald Goldman (Ford & Newton, 1994). Many people know this trial because of the high level of media attention it received but what is unknown to various people is the work that was put in by trial consultants Jo-Ellan Dimitrius and Don Vinson. During this trial, the consultants focused mainly on assisting with jury selection, conducting community attitude surveys, and guidance on trial strategies. The trial consultants had to find a way to work around

The defense attorney represents the defendant, the person accused of committing a crime or a wrongful act. Criminal defendants who are unable to come up with the money for to hire a lawyer are allowed to have the judge appoint them a lawyer who is then paid with public funds.

Defense attorneys have a wide variety of responsibilities, from defending their clients, building a case, and presenting the cases that they have built in court. First the defense attorney is presented with a case, and they have to decide if their case is strong enough to represent. After the decision is made to represent the client or not a case has to be built. Attorneys must work long and tiring hours to build a case strong enough to hold up in court. Defense attorneys must familiarize themselves with the ins and outs of the case before they can start building a defense(Read Write Think). Defense attorneys can work for an individual client, or work for the government as a public defender (Bureau of Labor Statistics). When presenting the case to the judge and jury, defense attorneys must be confident with the case that they are presenting. Attorneys must use hand gestures and

I have been asked to write an Amicus Brief to the trier of fact for the case of People v. Thomas, with specific attention to the issue of whether expert testimony should be permitted on the research examining risk factors for false confessions. Using the Frye standard, the trial court omitted the defense expert’s witness testimony (Burke, 2016). The aim of this brief is to provide information to you in the hope that the court will reverse this ruling. As a brief summary, due to a videotaped confession during his interrogation, Thomas was convicted of murdering his son (Burke, 2016). During his lengthy two-day interrogation, Thomas was briefly admitted to a mental institution for the emotional distress of his son’s injuries. Throughout his interrogation, the police used tactics such as minimization, false offers of leniency, and factual

I had never before considered the ethics behind lawyers, doctors and other similar professions. The first example given is about a guy confessing to his friend that he murdered someone and where the body was located. It was pointed out that there is a moral ideal that friends do not snitch on friends, but on the flip side there is an ethical pet where the friends must call the cops because they cannot condone murder. The second scenario given is about a guy confessing of murder to his lawyer. In this situation the lawyer cannot go to the police even though it is ethically right. If the lawyer were to go to the police and tell him what he knew he would be disbarred. There is a contract between client and lawyer for confidentiality and if this is broken, than the lawyer can no longer be trusted. This brings up a lot of issues about morals versus ethics and what should be done in different scenarios. Later it goes into research and how that is one area where many professionals are not checked at. This can lead to too much power with no one stopping and seeing if it is

To begin with, the job a prosecutor has is to gather the facts of the case, along with interviewing material witnesses, and study the evidence that was collected. Next, there may be two attorneys who work the case and both should make the case hold up in court. Finally, an example of a case “where the prosecutor was unethical was when Michael B. Nifong charged Duke university lacrosse team in 2007 with sexual assault, and other crimes, although the evidence collected did not prove that they were guilty.” (pg.)

Within the book, Dershowitz poses the question of whether prosecutors and defense attorneys are advocates for justice, or only for their clients. The reason for lawyers choosing a client can

The media often portrays a negative image of lawyers and judges. The way that lawyers and judges act in media can be described as selfish justice. The meaning of selfish justice refers to the lack of concern that lawyers and judges can have regarding the fairness of a trial and the consequences that a ruling can have on another human life. To clarify, in most crime television shows and even in reality, an innocent person can easily be found guilty in court if the district attorney has enough evidence to prove the defendant crime and if the defense lawyer is not able to counter the evidence. However, many district attorneys as represented on television do not exhibit honesty when it comes to presenting evidence. For example, many episodes showcase district attorneys put false witnesses in the stand to testify against the defendant. Their goal is to manipulate the jury to make them believe that there is enough evidence to procure a guilty verdict. Personal injury and medical malpractice cases are other similar situations. The majority of personal injury and medical malpractice cases get thrown out due to the lack of evidence to compensate the plaintiff (the litigating party) for damages. Thus, we can describe these situations as selfish justice. Lawyer, clients, witness, and judges are considered as selfish justice because the way in which they rule and deal with the lives of others demonstrates lack of consideration for human life and justice in the courtroom.

Since 1908, the ABA has been responsible for defining the standards of proper conduct for the legal profession. These standards, many of them established by the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, are continuously evolving as society and the practice of law change over time. In 1969, the ABA passed its Model Code of Professional Responsibility, guidelines for proper legal conduct that were eventually adopted by all jurisdictions. The ABA modified the code by adopting the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in 1983 and was revised in 2002. Any breach of the trust by the attorney that underlies the relationship between that attorney and the client can be considered misconduct. This thread will provide a synopsis of prosecutorial and attorney misconduct.

[12] In the nature of law practice, however, conflicting responsibilities are encountered. Virtually all difficult ethical problems arise from conflict between a lawyer 's responsibilities to clients, to the legal system, and to the lawyer 's own interest in remaining an ethical person while earning a satisfactory living. The Rules of Professional Conduct often prescribe terms for resolving such conflicts. Within the framework of these Rules, however, many difficult issues of professional discretion can arise. Such issues must be resolved through the exercise of sensitive professional and moral judgment guided by the basic principles underlying the Rules. These principles include the lawyer 's obligation zealously to protect and pursue a client 's legitimate interests, within the bounds of the law, while maintaining a professional, courteous and civil attitude toward all persons involved in the legal system.