...for doing the right thing.
It seems criminals have rights even when they have not hired a lawyer.
For all those who say you must always do the right thing, please remember the right thing would be for you to support this lawyer while he is unable to work.
Paul in PA
Obviously, it wasn't the right thing by the rules set for lawyers. Attorney-client privilege is a cornerstone of the way their world has worked for a long time. Even if the client tells the attorney he committed murders, the attorney is bound to defend him as best he can. If you don't like it, work for changing the rules.
The confusion factor here is whether or not the attorney-client relationship had or had not been established.
> ...for doing the right thing.
>
Paul, let me respectfully disagree. The attorney did not do the right thing. He broke his oath. He has an obligation to his client. He broke that oath.
Had the attorney contacted the proper authorities to report what he learned from his client, I might be more willing to cut him some slack. (Not much, but a small bit.) The fact he contacted the football coach just tells me he cared most about football.
I think we are seeing all to graphically right now what happens when people let their love of sports and sports figures get in the way of right and wrong.
Larry P
> > ...for doing the right thing.
> >
>
>
> Paul, let me respectfully disagree. The attorney did not do the right thing. He broke his oath. He has an obligation to his client. He broke that oath.
>
> Had the attorney contacted the proper authorities to report what he learned from his client, I might be more willing to cut him some slack. (Not much, but a small bit.) The fact he contacted the football coach just tells me he cared most about football.
>
> I think we are seeing all to graphically right now what happens when people let their love of sports and sports figures get in the way of right and wrong.
>
> Larry P
Larry,
Per the article, as reported, the key word as used by the panel was "prospective" client. Ergo he had no obligation nor was there attorney/client privilege. The panel that is recommending suspension has already cut its own throat and should be subject to discipline themselves.
> Per the article, as reported, the key word as used by the panel was "prospective" client. Ergo he had no obligation nor was there attorney/client privilege. The panel that is recommending suspension has already cut its own throat and should be subject to discipline themselves.
I understand what you are saying. But there are some interesting questions that arise.
If a "prospective" client comes in for a consultation is there no privilege?
At what point does the privilege arise?
Is a client really a client before they pay the attorney? If not, then the attorney would be free to share whatever they want with the clients who did not pay their bills.
I tend to fall into the group that thinks once the client starts discussing details of what is being done, the privilege has attached. But that's just me.
Larry P
>>
> If a "prospective" client comes in for a consultation is there no privilege?
>
> At what point does the privilege arise?
>
>>
> I tend to fall into the group that thinks once the client starts discussing details of what is being done, the privilege has attached. But that's just me.
>
> Larry P
I agree with you. That is the standard as I understand it.
> Per the article, as reported, the key word as used by the panel was "prospective" client. Ergo he had no obligation nor was there attorney/client privilege. The panel that is recommending suspension has already cut its own throat and should be subject to discipline themselves.
Attorney client privilege applies to communication with clients, prospective clients, and if any person has a reasonable belief that the privilege exists based on the behavior of the parties (Implied Attorney Relationship).
I am "literalistic". If a person is not a client, no privilege exists or is attached to communications, unless I so chose. JMHO.:-P
> > Per the article, as reported, the key word as used by the panel was "prospective" client. Ergo he had no obligation nor was there attorney/client privilege. The panel that is recommending suspension has already cut its own throat and should be subject to discipline themselves.
>
> Attorney client privilege applies to communication with clients, prospective clients, and if any person has a reasonable belief that the privilege exists based on the behavior of the parties (Implied Attorney Relationship).
I agree.
