Professional confidentiality: what are the boundaries?

Called attorney-client privilege in the legal context, or in religious contexts, confession secret (as for the priests during the sacrament of confession).

I have known penal lawyers (that is attorneys that are specialized in criminal procedure) that have had knowledge (and evidence) that their own client was an assassin. A murderer.
This attorney secretly shipped all the evidence to the prosecutor, who could find further evidence which could be used in court.
So the suspect, and later the defendant received a life sentence.
The lawyer renounced the defense, (that is, he resigned), so he didn't violate any attorney-client privilege.

What do you think? Do you agree that sometimes this secret is supposed to be violated in order to make Justice triumph?

Evidence should be shared between both defence and prosecution and the court.
Confession of crime should not.

Terrywoodenpic said:

Evidence should be shared between both defence and prosecution and the court.
Confession of crime should not.

Click to expand...

Does it surprise you that many attorneys are willing to defend murderers?
I mean...people who tell their own lawyers : "yes, I did kill that person, but I want to get away with it".
Is it normal?

I think the limit to this right to confidentiality comes when someone's life is in danger. Or when there is knowledge of intent to commit another crime.

Estro Felino said:

Does it surprise you that many attorneys are willing to defend murderers?
I mean...people who tell their own lawyers : "yes, I did kill that person, but I want to get away with it".
Is it normal?

Click to expand...

The profession has a reputation for being scrupleless.

Father Heathen said:

The profession has a reputation for being scrupleless.

Click to expand...

That's for sure.
I was so disgusted in law school...
I felt like vomiting listening to some of my colleagues...that I used to have lunch all alone.

PureX said:

I think the limit to this right to confidentiality comes when someone's life is in danger. Or when there is knowledge of intent to commit another crime.

Click to expand...

There's balance in this stance.

I've posted this ethics question from a Law School test before.

Situation:
A client enters your office, & asks to buy an
hour of your time. You say that will cost $100.
The client places a $100 bill on your desk.
You discuss his problems, & after an hour he
leaves.
As he's passing thru the door, you notice that
a 2nd $100 bill is mistakenly stuck to the first.

Ethics question:
Do you tell your partner about the extra $100?

Revoltingest said:

I've posted this ethics question from a Law School test before.

Situation:
A client enters your office, & asks to buy an
hour of your time. You say that will cost $100.
The client places a $100 bill on your desk.
You discuss his problems, & after an hour he
leaves.
As he's passing thru the door, you notice that
a 2nd $100 bill is mistakenly stuck to the first.

Ethics question:
Do you tell your partner about the extra $100?

Click to expand...

I would like to know what this has to do with my thread.

By the way...if the question is addressed to me, I give the extra bill back to the client.

Revoltingest said:

I've posted this ethics question from a Law School test before.

Situation:
A client enters your office, & asks to buy an
hour of your time. You say that will cost $100.
The client places a $100 bill on your desk.
You discuss his problems, & after an hour he
leaves.
As he's passing thru the door, you notice that
a 2nd $100 bill is mistakenly stuck to the first.

Ethics question:
Do you tell your partner about the extra $100?

Click to expand...

I might be missing the point. Surely it's the client you tell, and hand him back the money?

Estro Felino said:

Called attorney-client privilege in the legal context, or in religious contexts, confession secret (as for the priests during the sacrament of confession).

I have known penal lawyers (that is attorneys that are specialized in criminal procedure) that have had knowledge (and evidence) that their own client was an assassin. A murderer.
This attorney secretly shipped all the evidence to the prosecutor, who could find further evidence which could be used in court.
So the suspect, and later the defendant received a life sentence.
The lawyer renounced the defense, (that is, he resigned), so he didn't violate any attorney-client privilege.

What do you think? Do you agree that sometimes this secret is supposed to be violated in order to make Justice triumph?

Click to expand...

Well, if it's a priest listening to someone's confession, the implication is that God knows what the person did, so the priest's role is to dictate whatever penance is required to gain God's forgiveness.

We have an adversarial legal system, although I've heard some criticisms of that. There's also the belief that everyone is entitled to a defense and to have their day in court. Winning is everything. I remember this when watching this scene with Al Pacino in And Justice For All.

Stevicus said:

Well, if it's a priest listening to someone's confession, the implication is that God knows what the person did, so the priest's role is to dictate whatever penance is required to gain God's forgiveness.

We have an adversarial legal system, although I've heard some criticisms of that. There's also the belief that everyone is entitled to a defense and to have their day in court. Winning is everything. I remember this when watching this scene with Al Pacino in And Justice For All.

Click to expand...

Terrific scene.
You can see how his conscience is exploding...and then he bursts out because he knows his client deserves jail.

By the way, I can give you a practical example.
A girl killed her cousin in Southern Italy. Her father took the blame: after seven hours of non-stop interrogation (a non-stop third-degree, I have heard it), he confessed where he had concealed the body but took the blame to save his own daughter.
But then in jail, he complained with his own lawyer, saying his daughter didn't deserve to be saved, because she is a mean wicked girl who strangled her 15 year old cousin to death.
His lawyer managed to tell this to the prosecutor...who started investigating the man's daughter.
Through not that legal means, they managed to make him declare the truth.
So now he is free.
And now his daughter is in jail.
Justice has been done.

Estro Felino said:

Terrific scene.
You can see how his conscience is exploding...and then he bursts out because he knows his client deserves jail.

Click to expand...

Yes, and there was an earlier scene where he's discussing it with his girlfriend (who is seen standing at the courtroom entrance and cheering for him at the end). He said he just couldn't do it, since he knew he was guilty - and he hated the judge who was on trial anyway. They coerced him into defending him, which was probably a bad idea. His girlfriend told him that he should go through with it, since if he wins (which he probably would have), he'd become an important attorney and more prestigious. If he refused, he could have been disbarred (since they were blackmailing over an earlier case where he violated attorney-client privilege).

It was an interesting, eye-opening legal drama about the American justice system. Quite well done with an all-star cast. My image of the city of Baltimore was forever tainted by that movie.

By the way, I can give you a practical example.
A girl killed her cousin in Southern Italy. Her father took the blame: after seven hours of non-stop interrogation (a non-stop third-degree, I have heard it), he confessed where he had concealed the body but took the blame to save his own daughter.
But then in jail, he complained with his own lawyer, saying his daughter didn't deserve to be saved, because she is a mean wicked girl who strangled her 15 year old cousin to death.
His lawyer managed to tell this to the prosecutor...who started investigating the man's daughter.
Through not that legal means, they managed to make him declare the truth.
So now he is free.
And now his daughter is in jail.
Justice has been done.

Click to expand...

Wow. It can sure complicate things when family members feel compelled to try to cover up or take the blame for another family member.

Overall, I've grown quite doubtful and skeptical whenever any attorney tries to introduce a "confession" as evidence in court. Hearing too many stories of people being coerced or tricked into "confessing" something they didn't do makes me doubt the whole thing entirely.

Stevicus said:

Overall, I've grown quite doubtful and skeptical whenever any attorney tries to introduce a "confession" as evidence in court. Hearing too many stories of people being coerced or tricked into "confessing" something they didn't do makes me doubt the whole thing entirely.

Click to expand...

I am neither a psychologist nor a psychiatrist.,...but seriously...who would ever confess to a crime they haven't committed?
It's impossible...nobody would do such a thing, to take the blame for a crime committed by a stranger.

In my opinion, confessions mean confession.
Besides, if someone confesses where he concealed the body, it means he's in on it.

A barrister should defend his client even when he knows he is guilty. However he should not lie or present false evidence.
It is up to the prosecutor to prove his case.
That is the way the law in the UK works.

Every one has the right to a lawyer to speak for them. Even if it is only in mitigation.
All evidence that will be used by either side must be given to the other before the trial.

Estro Felino said:

I am neither a psychologist nor a psychiatrist.,...but seriously...who would ever confess to a crime they haven't committed?

Click to expand...

People who are easily influenced. There are myriads of cases where people have been talked into confessing something they didn't do. And that is easier than you think. Psychologists have planted false memories into peoples mind. So not only did some people confess to crimes they didn't do, they believed they had done them.

Terrywoodenpic said:

A barrister should defend his client even when he knows he is guilty. However he should not lie or present false evidence.
It is up to the prosecutor to prove his case.
That is the way the law in the UK works.

Every one has the right to a lawyer to speak for them. Even if it is only in mitigation.
All evidence that will be used by either side must be given to the other before the trial.

Click to expand...

It's like walking on thin ice...
because if the defendant blames his own lawyer, saying he helped him conceal the evidence, such "barrister" can be sued and tried for aiding and abetting a criminal.
There have been lawyers who have been sentenced for aiding and abetting.
I can name them.

Heyo said:

People who are easily influenced. There are myriads of cases where people have been talked into confessing something they didn't do. And that is easier than you think. Psychologists have planted false memories into peoples mind. So not only did some people confess to crimes they didn't do, they believed they had done them.

Click to expand...

I perfectly recall what I did yesterday. So no officer can ever plant into me a "false memory".

Estro Felino said:

It's like walking on thin ice...
because if the defendant blames his own lawyer, saying he helped him conceal the evidence, such "barrister" can be sued and tried for aiding and abetting a criminal.
There have been lawyers who have been sentenced for aiding and abetting.
I can name them.

Click to expand...

No doubt some criminal lawyers are criminal themselves.
In the UK , they get very heavy sentences when caught.
Thankfully it is pretty rare.

Estro Felino said:

Does it surprise you that many attorneys are willing to defend murderers?
I mean...people who tell their own lawyers : "yes, I did kill that person, but I want to get away with it".
Is it normal?

Click to expand...

All murderers have barristers defending them in the UK. I suspect most of them know that they are guilty. But they are still required to defend them.