Pros And Cons Of The Giver

Bok analyzes the effects that lying has upon the society and individuals. In chapter XI, which deals most directly with lawyers, she sited the code of professional responsibility in support of this statement, “in the adversary system of justice,” truth is held to be more likely to emerges as a result of the contest between opposing forces is the accused is both defended and prosecuted “zealously with the bounds of the law.” In other words, Bok shows the social practice of truth telling to have great value both generally and personally when dealing with clients, when you are a lawyer.

In the relationship between counsellor and client the need for confidentiality is vital as it is not only the bases that the relationship is built on and it is a legal obligation.

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.

The situation is the decision to breach the confidentiality between a client and his patient. The therapist has to decide if the client will pose a threat to himself or any other 3rd party, or society as a whole. If the therapist feels in any way that the client could be a threat, he has the right to notify the person or the correct officials to insure that no harm comes to anyone involved.

From my limited understanding of law, I believe attorney-client privilege to be an integral part of the U.S. judicial system. However, I do not understand it to be protected by the U.S. Constitution and absolute, like many seem to think it is. This is where it can get hazy. I do not believe that the government should have free reign in wiretapping or surveillance, as this can impede on my own liberties. As I researched and learned more about the topic, I feel as if this particular issue in this assignment was a trick question of sorts, because there seems to be two different issues involved. But in my opinion, yes, the U.S. government should be able to curb the attorney-client privilege when the client is a convicted or suspected terrorist. For that matter, the U.S. government should be able to curb it whenever it deems it necessary, so far as the law will

Lohman v. Superior Court (1978) 81 Cal. App. 3d 90 [146 Cal. Rptr. 171]the pro per invoked his rights not as a client but rather as one performing the functions of an attorney. Ultimately, the Courts held the basic fundamental purpose of invoking the privilege is for the purpose of protecting the client, not just attorneys and therefore, a pro per has those protections of the material sought would be subject to discovery from a represented party, it will be discoverable from a litigant appearing in propria persona. Dowden v. Superior Court (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 126, 135 [86 Cal.Rptr.2d 180] rather as one performing the functions of an attorney. Ultimately, the Courts held the basic fundamental purpose of invoking the privilege is for the purpose of protecting the client, not just attorneys and therefore, a pro per has those protections. of the material sought would be subject to discovery from a represented party, it will be discoverable from a litigant appearing in propria persona. Dowden v. Superior Court (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 126, 135 [86 Cal.Rptr.2d

Any discussions made between the lawyer and the consultant are protected by attorney work product privilege allowing both parties to freely exchange information without disclosure to the other side. However, if the consultant has been identified as an expert witness, only then is the work product privilege lifted and their work is discoverable to the opposing counsel (Elmore, D.R.).

In 1995, a dispute between two men ended in fatality and laid groundwork guaranteeing confidentiality between therapists and patients. During the ensuing trial, the officer inadvertently helped to establish confidentiality rights while fighting to conceal her own medical history. The case bounced through several courts and eventually the highest court in the United States heard the final appeal. The matter was so controversial that it attracted the attention, and involvement, of the American Psychological Association. The resulting verdict strengthened the court’s resolve when hearing cases involving confidentiality rights and also changed how firms and organizations handle employee information and private health related issues.

If all lawyers information and cases were publicly available, there would be a long term effect on the justice system where lawyers wouldn’t take case involving political stances because of threats from the people. Stephen Jones was the lawyer that defended Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing. He took on the case because nobody else would and he wanted to maintain justice. He said that he has a revolver at his office and a shotgun at home because he was scared of threats. He said “the FBI investigated threats against my life,” and “My family had armed guards for 2 ½ years”(Jones) . In “To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee, we can see the threats come in when a lawyer, Atticus, takes on a case involving a black man in the racist

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

In such a case, it has been held that the attorney against whom misconduct is alleged cannot file a cross-complaint against the unnamed attorneys for comparative equity or indemnification. (See Kroll & Tract v. Paris & Paris (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1537.) In Kroll, it was held that the client does not waive the attorney-client communications privilege as to all attorneys by suing one. The court found that other attorneys may not be able to defend themselves because they would be required to disclose client communications. In such a case, the attorney may nonetheless show the negligence of other attorneys through the affirmative defense of comparative negligence and reduce his or her liability in that manner. California has to yet to rule on the issue of whether a law firm may intercede to protect its name and introduce client communications on its behalf. A ruling in a firm’s favor on this issue is highly unlikely, as the purpose of the rule is to permit an attorney the opportunity to defend herself from malpractice, not defend her reputation. In weighing an attorney’s right to defend her good name with the client’s interest in protected communication, courts would most likely rule in favor of the

Wherever LPP applies to a communication between a lawyer and client, the client is allowed to object any third party seeing the communication for any reason, unless the client has agreed or waived its rights, a statute provides that the privilege can be overruled, the document affected was prepared for, or in connection with a corrupt purpose, or one of few exceptions apply . The right to confidentiality and legal privilege lies with the client, meaning the client is allowed to waive that right. Clients may decide the information may be disclosed to allow the press to be informed of their position. A client might even decide to use their own communications with their lawyer as evidence in the trial.

In order to prevail this purpose, the secret of internal must be sacred and can not be violated by any state’s officer. Thus, the theory of attorney - client privilege has been manipulated. According to Black’s Law, attorney - client privilege is a "client's right privilege

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.

The legal ethics has positive as well as negative points the problems that are taken forward step in the courtroom. In this the court want to tell us about the legal rights and obligations that could be used for the benefits of the people. The unknown facts that have the negative point that is the attorney client privileges which elimate the confidentiality and privacy concept. The lawful establish deals with fair and equitable decision that taken by the court. The fair and equitable deals with the attorney client privilege. I would be talking about confidentiality in lawyer and client relationship. The article that we did in the class was M.B.E smith which talks about the about lawyer should listen to the philosopher in theory legal ethics