6 ms·

Your lawyer should advise you but ultimately follow your instructions. If he feels (or knows) you are guilty and you want to plead otherwise, he should decline

Your lawyer should advise you but ultimately follow your instructions. If he feels (or knows) you are guilty and you want to plead otherwise, he should decline to represent you.

brians 9y ago
Surely if he knows you’re guilty, but they’ll never prove it, the question is more complicated?
- peg_leg 9y ago
  If the mitigation of guilt is a not guilty plea then it's rather simple.
- buckminster 9y ago
  In the UK a lawyer has duties towards both his client and the court. For a lawyer to lie to the court is a serious breach of his professional ethics. To represent a client he knows to be guilty on a not guilty plea is to lie to the court. In reality there is usually wriggle room concerning motive or the suitability of the charge, say. But I know a lawyer who has turned away clients who have flat out confessed to him.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    Isn't there a famous movie scene where the murderer approaches a lawyer, who cuts him off and advises him on what a lawyer can do. (Anatomy of a Murder? Jimmy Stewart). He covers the issue of what the lawyer knows, and what he can do in each case. Pretty good writing.
    - mcguire 9y ago
      I seem to recall another scene from Rumpole, where the character has taken on a student intern or something. While interviewing the client, the student asks, "But did you do it?" and Rumpole drags him aside and tells him, "Never ask that."
  - berns 9y ago
    > To represent a client he knows to be guilty on a not guilty plea is to lie to the court. But how does he know his client is guilty? Is he supposed to judge his client?
    - buckminster 9y ago
      The guilt doesn't matter in a sense. For example, if the client tells the lawyer he robbed the bank, the lawyer cannot try to persuade the court that the client was somewhere else because he knows it isn't true.
      - berns 9y ago
        I'm thinking how what you say relates to this case specifically. The client insisted in his innocence. Even if the attorney considers the evidence overwhelming, he could plead his client innocent without lying.
      - nkrisc 9y ago
        But how does the lawyer know it isn't true? Is the lawyer supposed to pass judgement on the evidence? Isn't that what the trial is for in the first place?
        dsp1234 9y ago
        if the client tells the lawyer he robbed the bank What reason would the attorney have for not believing the information that the client confesses voluntarily under the veil of attorney-client privilege?.
        gknoy 9y ago
        Sometimes people lie to protect other people, or to conceal a secret that they might feel to be more devastating.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        The attorney could believe that his client is a pathological liar, among a near infinite array of other possibilities.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    Wow. Considering the historical reliability of the ways in which we find people guilty of crimes that sounds like a terrible system.
  - SilasX 9y ago
    I'm no expert, but that doesn't sound right. Specifically, it contradicts my model of Anglo-American jurisprudence, where I expect: 1) Defendants have the right to a trial, regardless of how "obviously guilty" they are in anyone's eyes. 2) Trials are, in part, about whether the state has met its burden to prove the elements of the case, regardless of the lay truth of the accused's guilt. [A] 3) Given the above, the work of a lawyer (in a trial) does not inherently involve the representation that "this defendant is innocent", but only that "there is insufficient evidence of that element of the case", which needn't be a fraud on the court, even if the prosecution's claim is true. (With that said, more specific lies can be off limits.) [A] A Man for All Seasons: "The world must judge according to its wits; this court must judge according to the law."
    - buckminster 9y ago
      1) Yes. The lawyer can only know the client is guilty if the client tells him. 2) Yes. 3) Yes. The difficulty arises when the lawyer has been provided with evidence by the client which supports the charge. Ultimately it's the lawyers job to present the client's case, however implausible. However, "I did it but I want to pretend I didn't" isn't a case, it's a lie.
      - SilasX 9y ago
        So... you're agreeing or disagreeing that a lawyer can ethically represent a client who he believes "did it" by arguing that the evidence is insufficient? If you agree, that's walking back on your original comment; if you disagree, that seems to go sharply against 1/2/3. Edit: As the others note, this is going sharply against well-known legal principles. Do you have any authoritative citation that UK lawyers can't represent clients at all on a not-guilty plea while believing them to have "done it"?
mcguire 9y ago
In this case, wasn't the lawyer a public defender assigned to the case? Edit: the first was, the second was hired by the family, who filed that his client was indigent and he was to be paid from public defense monies.
- throwaway2048 9y ago
  This is a critical question, public defenders in the USA practically force their clients to plede out, due to massive caseload.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Also one easily answered by the article. > But he was continually at odds with his public defenders, eventually firing them for refusing to file subpoenas he prepared for a dozen witnesses, who he said could support his alibi defense and other claims. He briefly acted as his own lawyer until his parents hired Larry English to defend him, and even then, the defendant continued to file motions in his own defense. > English repeatedly advised McCoy to plead guilty in exchange for life in prison instead of the death penalty or to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, but McCoy repeatedly refused, insisting that he was innocent.
    - jandrese 9y ago
      This is an unenviable position, to be innocent but everybody else assumes you're guilty and you don't have the resources to mount a proper defense so the "best" advice you can get is to lie and say that you are guilty so maybe the state won't kill you. This is how innocent people end up on death row.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        I agree that it's a serious issue, but it seems kind of ancillary to this one.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
basseq 9y ago
> Your lawyer should advise you but ultimately follow your instructions. ... or resign. There are lots of instances in professional services where you simply have to say 'no'. If you're not willing or able to represent your client in the way they want to be represented, the correct response is, "I'm sorry, but I'll be unable to continue to advise and represent you on this matter." In the doctor example above, the doctor will—and should—absolutely refuse to follow your instructions to cut off your arm. (If you are insistent, you can probably find someone in the body modification community to do it for you, though a) it's probably illegal for them to do so and b) don't confuse that with legitimate medical intervention.)
- emodendroket 9y ago
  What do you suppose it means to "decline to represent" someone?
  - basseq 9y ago
    Exactly that! I could swear that part wasn't in there when I started responding, but I guess I honed in on the first sentence and my reading comprehension suffered. Mea culpa.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > ... or resign. Lawyers may not be free to do so, though they can try.
Balgair 9y ago
I mean, the local Bar would have a lot to say about lawyers that don't do what the client tells them to do. And, at least in the Common Law system it is typical that lawyers will argue that guilty people are not guilty all the time. Like, the news is full of these types of cases. And the ethics of representing the guilty have been worked out pretty well by now; it's really necessary. Most Bar Associations are pretty strict and hand out disbarments all the time for scummy lawyers.

Your lawyer should advise you but ultimately follow your instructions. If he feels (or knows) you are guilty and you want to plead otherwise, he should decline to represent you.

brians 9y ago

Surely if he knows you’re guilty, but they’ll never prove it, the question is more complicated?

peg_leg 9y ago
If the mitigation of guilt is a not guilty plea then it's rather simple.
buckminster 9y ago
In the UK a lawyer has duties towards both his client and the court. For a lawyer to lie to the court is a serious breach of his professional ethics. To represent a client he knows to be guilty on a not guilty plea is to lie to the court. In reality there is usually wriggle room concerning motive or the suitability of the charge, say. But I know a lawyer who has turned away clients who have flat out confessed to him.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  Isn't there a famous movie scene where the murderer approaches a lawyer, who cuts him off and advises him on what a lawyer can do. (Anatomy of a Murder? Jimmy Stewart). He covers the issue of what the lawyer knows, and what he can do in each case. Pretty good writing.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    I seem to recall another scene from Rumpole, where the character has taken on a student intern or something. While interviewing the client, the student asks, "But did you do it?" and Rumpole drags him aside and tells him, "Never ask that."
- berns 9y ago
  > To represent a client he knows to be guilty on a not guilty plea is to lie to the court. But how does he know his client is guilty? Is he supposed to judge his client?
  - buckminster 9y ago
    The guilt doesn't matter in a sense. For example, if the client tells the lawyer he robbed the bank, the lawyer cannot try to persuade the court that the client was somewhere else because he knows it isn't true.
    - berns 9y ago
      I'm thinking how what you say relates to this case specifically. The client insisted in his innocence. Even if the attorney considers the evidence overwhelming, he could plead his client innocent without lying.
    - nkrisc 9y ago
      But how does the lawyer know it isn't true? Is the lawyer supposed to pass judgement on the evidence? Isn't that what the trial is for in the first place?
      - dsp1234 9y ago
        if the client tells the lawyer he robbed the bank What reason would the attorney have for not believing the information that the client confesses voluntarily under the veil of attorney-client privilege?.
        gknoy 9y ago
        Sometimes people lie to protect other people, or to conceal a secret that they might feel to be more devastating.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        The attorney could believe that his client is a pathological liar, among a near infinite array of other possibilities.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  Wow. Considering the historical reliability of the ways in which we find people guilty of crimes that sounds like a terrible system.
- SilasX 9y ago
  I'm no expert, but that doesn't sound right. Specifically, it contradicts my model of Anglo-American jurisprudence, where I expect: 1) Defendants have the right to a trial, regardless of how "obviously guilty" they are in anyone's eyes. 2) Trials are, in part, about whether the state has met its burden to prove the elements of the case, regardless of the lay truth of the accused's guilt. [A] 3) Given the above, the work of a lawyer (in a trial) does not inherently involve the representation that "this defendant is innocent", but only that "there is insufficient evidence of that element of the case", which needn't be a fraud on the court, even if the prosecution's claim is true. (With that said, more specific lies can be off limits.) [A] A Man for All Seasons: "The world must judge according to its wits; this court must judge according to the law."
  - buckminster 9y ago
    1) Yes. The lawyer can only know the client is guilty if the client tells him. 2) Yes. 3) Yes. The difficulty arises when the lawyer has been provided with evidence by the client which supports the charge. Ultimately it's the lawyers job to present the client's case, however implausible. However, "I did it but I want to pretend I didn't" isn't a case, it's a lie.
    - SilasX 9y ago
      So... you're agreeing or disagreeing that a lawyer can ethically represent a client who he believes "did it" by arguing that the evidence is insufficient? If you agree, that's walking back on your original comment; if you disagree, that seems to go sharply against 1/2/3. Edit: As the others note, this is going sharply against well-known legal principles. Do you have any authoritative citation that UK lawyers can't represent clients at all on a not-guilty plea while believing them to have "done it"?

mcguire 9y ago

In this case, wasn't the lawyer a public defender assigned to the case? Edit: the first was, the second was hired by the family, who filed that his client was indigent and he was to be paid from public defense monies.

throwaway2048 9y ago
This is a critical question, public defenders in the USA practically force their clients to plede out, due to massive caseload.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Also one easily answered by the article. > But he was continually at odds with his public defenders, eventually firing them for refusing to file subpoenas he prepared for a dozen witnesses, who he said could support his alibi defense and other claims. He briefly acted as his own lawyer until his parents hired Larry English to defend him, and even then, the defendant continued to file motions in his own defense. > English repeatedly advised McCoy to plead guilty in exchange for life in prison instead of the death penalty or to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, but McCoy repeatedly refused, insisting that he was innocent.
  - jandrese 9y ago
    This is an unenviable position, to be innocent but everybody else assumes you're guilty and you don't have the resources to mount a proper defense so the "best" advice you can get is to lie and say that you are guilty so maybe the state won't kill you. This is how innocent people end up on death row.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      I agree that it's a serious issue, but it seems kind of ancillary to this one.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago

basseq 9y ago

> Your lawyer should advise you but ultimately follow your instructions. ... or resign. There are lots of instances in professional services where you simply have to say 'no'. If you're not willing or able to represent your client in the way they want to be represented, the correct response is, "I'm sorry, but I'll be unable to continue to advise and represent you on this matter." In the doctor example above, the doctor will—and should—absolutely refuse to follow your instructions to cut off your arm. (If you are insistent, you can probably find someone in the body modification community to do it for you, though a) it's probably illegal for them to do so and b) don't confuse that with legitimate medical intervention.)

emodendroket 9y ago
What do you suppose it means to "decline to represent" someone?
- basseq 9y ago
  Exactly that! I could swear that part wasn't in there when I started responding, but I guess I honed in on the first sentence and my reading comprehension suffered. Mea culpa.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> ... or resign. Lawyers may not be free to do so, though they can try.

Balgair 9y ago

I mean, the local Bar would have a lot to say about lawyers that don't do what the client tells them to do. And, at least in the Common Law system it is typical that lawyers will argue that guilty people are not guilty all the time. Like, the news is full of these types of cases. And the ethics of representing the guilty have been worked out pretty well by now; it's really necessary. Most Bar Associations are pretty strict and hand out disbarments all the time for scummy lawyers.