3 ms·
That's besides the point though. Consider the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" - a fundamental pillar of the justice system. It is not the job
by olalonde 4y ago
That's besides the point though. Consider the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" - a fundamental pillar of the justice system. It is not the job of a lawyer to determine whether a defendant is guilty or innocent; they are only responsible for presenting evidence and arguments to support their client's case. Ultimately, it is the judge or jury who must decide whether to convict or acquit. The whole process is designed to determine guilt. Requiring a lawyer to know whether their client is guilty in advance amounts to asking them to predict the outcome of that process, to foresee the future.
PS: I am not trying to defend SBF here and I hope that that any money linked to Alameda/FTX, including the money he sent to friends and family, is clawed back. But that's a separate issue.
- twelve40 4y agothe issue might be not the lawyers getting into trouble necessarily but for those fees to be confiscated. Why would you as a lawyer sign up to do all this work when there is a chance your fees will evaporate?
- olalonde 4y agoIndeed. If that's what OP meant, it makes a lot more sense.
- freejazz 4y ago>Consider the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" - a fundamental pillar of the justice system. Let's not put the cart before the horse. It's the law firms obligations to make sure they aren't participating in a crime, it has nothing to do with assuming someone's guilt.
- olalonde 4y agoSo tell me: if the lawyers get paid by SBF, are they participating in a crime? Doesn't the answer depend on whether SBF is guilty or not?
- JohnFen 4y agoIf they're knowingly being paid from the proceeds of a crime then yes, they're participating in the crime.
- olalonde 4y agoThat's different from "has a duty to ensure that the money used to pay them wasn't from the proceeds of a crime" though. If their client claims they're innocent, would they be clear because they don't know that their client is guilty?
- freejazz 4y agoNo, because "knowingly" isn't an element.
- freejazz 4y agoIf he's convicted, yeah. Based on the facts, they are getting paid by money he stole himself and directed to his family.
- JohnFen 4y ago> Consider the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" - a fundamental pillar of the justice system. It's "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". Not necessarily in your lawyer's office. > Requiring a lawyer to know whether their client is guilty in advance amounts to asking them to predict the outcome of that process, to foresee the future. No, that's a different thing. Requiring a lawyer to know the facts is not requiring the lawyer to know how the court will rule in the case.
- olalonde 4y agoThey can form an opinion on whether their client is guilty. But they can't know whether they are correct until the verdict.
- JohnFen 4y agoWell, sure they can, unless you mean "guilty" in the sense of a court finding them guilty rather than in the sense that they actually committed the crime.