5 ms·

You have responsability for your actions even if you're legaly forced to them. This sane principle was officialized in the Nuremberg trials [1]. Edit0: In fact

by madez 12y ago

You have responsability for your actions even if you're legaly forced to them. This sane principle was officialized in the Nuremberg trials [1]. Edit0: In fact, the principles were more specific to international law vs national law and orders. However, the idea behind is still sane even if you don't violate international law. Edit1: It's about recognizing personal responsibility. Edit2: Those who disagree, why? [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles

Rangi42 12y ago
There is value in doing your legal duty, even if some people think your duty is to do a bad thing. "I was just doing my job" is not considered a sufficient defense of Nazi actions because their actions were so terrible that being legally required to do them does not mitigate that. Threatening legal action, on the other hand, is an ordinary event that can be easily excused as "just what lawyers have to do for their clients."
karlmdavis 12y ago
I don't know this for sure, but I seem to recall that lawyer's professional rules of conduct require them to not leave clients in the lurch, without providing them ample warning to find new counsel. I believe this is what the GP poster is mentioning when he says that there often isn't "sufficient time to withdraw."
MichaelCrawford 12y ago
There are plenty of times that one has a duty to violate the law. Consider that the US Supreme Court does not render advisory opinions; to overturn an unconstitutional law, one must violate it first, then defend oneself all the way to the Supremes. This is a very risky proposition as it happens all the time that the Supreme Court will deny certiori over some petty issue. If you wonder why I use my real name here and elsewhere online, it's because I regard it as my duty to - someday - defend myself before the Supreme Court.
- kemitchell 12y ago
  > Consider that the US Supreme Court does not render advisory opinions; to overturn an unconstitutional law, one must violate it first, then defend oneself all the way to the Supremes. Please don't take this the wrong way: Research this topic further!
  - MichaelCrawford 12y ago
    I've been working on that for a while.
brownbat 12y ago
> Those who disagree, why? They probably feel that the Nuremberg trials are a hyperbolic example here, and worry that line of argument brushes a little too close to Godwin's Law. Upshot, we probably all agree with you that everyone has personal responsibility for their actions. There are still situations where we want attorneys to listen to their clients though.
- madez 12y ago
  Do you have a better example where personal responsibility was officialy upheld?
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    A story about a two year old learning about agency would be a better example, there are millions of better examples for this context. The most extreme example of a thing you can find is not usually the ideal example to use for most contexts. Rather than clarifying things, if it dwarfs the context, it then appears automatically ridiculous even if the basic argument is sound.
    - madez 12y ago
      > A story about a two year old learning about agency would be a better example, This is not an example for official upholding of personal responsibility. > there are millions of better examples for this context. This is hand-waving. I used the Nuremberg trials specifically to not hand-wave.
      - lotsofmangos 12y ago
        "This is hand-waving. I used the Nuremberg trials specifically to not hand-wave." Now that is funny, though I suspect unintentionally, and in horrifically bad taste either way.
        madez 12y ago
kemitchell 12y ago
Nuremberg? Wasn't the story about computer nerds or something? http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_2_scope_of_representation_allocation_of_authority_between_client_lawyer.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibilit... Many state bar associations have rules like that one. Lawyers can make good-faith arguments that their client's behavior isn't illegal. They can't break the law for their clients or help their clients break the law. No one should be stuck, unable to get a lawyer and put up a fair legal fight, just because some part of the population condemns them as amoral, but can't pass a law expressing that condemnation that stands up to civil liberties challenge. Lawyers should serve hated people, too, and ideally do for them just as they would do for themselves if they understood the law and the system. Lawyers who can do that for truly loathsome clients are superheroes. They often set aside deep feelings and strongly held personal convictions in the service of the greater value of a fairer legal system. It's a real-life Gom Jabbar test, and repeat sittings have driven many good lawyers to self-destruction, one way or another. So: If you don't want lawyers helping assholes, try and pass a law against being an asshole. It would be vague. Prejudiced assholes would wield it against legitimate non-assholes. Good lawyers defending actual assholes would kill it in court. More succinctly: https://youtu.be/WMqReTJkjjg?t=2m10s https://youtu.be/WMqReTJkjjg?t=2m10s
lotsofmangos 12y ago
If all that Hitler had done was get Goebbels to send out threatening letters to people who remarked that he had left his door unlocked, then referencing Nuremberg over lawyers sending cease and desist letters on behalf of a padlock manufacturer might not seem quite so ridiculous.

by madez 12y ago

Rangi42 12y ago

There is value in doing your legal duty, even if some people think your duty is to do a bad thing. "I was just doing my job" is not considered a sufficient defense of Nazi actions because their actions were so terrible that being legally required to do them does not mitigate that. Threatening legal action, on the other hand, is an ordinary event that can be easily excused as "just what lawyers have to do for their clients."

karlmdavis 12y ago

I don't know this for sure, but I seem to recall that lawyer's professional rules of conduct require them to not leave clients in the lurch, without providing them ample warning to find new counsel. I believe this is what the GP poster is mentioning when he says that there often isn't "sufficient time to withdraw."

MichaelCrawford 12y ago

There are plenty of times that one has a duty to violate the law. Consider that the US Supreme Court does not render advisory opinions; to overturn an unconstitutional law, one must violate it first, then defend oneself all the way to the Supremes. This is a very risky proposition as it happens all the time that the Supreme Court will deny certiori over some petty issue. If you wonder why I use my real name here and elsewhere online, it's because I regard it as my duty to - someday - defend myself before the Supreme Court.

kemitchell 12y ago
> Consider that the US Supreme Court does not render advisory opinions; to overturn an unconstitutional law, one must violate it first, then defend oneself all the way to the Supremes. Please don't take this the wrong way: Research this topic further!
- MichaelCrawford 12y ago
  I've been working on that for a while.

brownbat 12y ago

> Those who disagree, why? They probably feel that the Nuremberg trials are a hyperbolic example here, and worry that line of argument brushes a little too close to Godwin's Law. Upshot, we probably all agree with you that everyone has personal responsibility for their actions. There are still situations where we want attorneys to listen to their clients though.

madez 12y ago
Do you have a better example where personal responsibility was officialy upheld?
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  A story about a two year old learning about agency would be a better example, there are millions of better examples for this context. The most extreme example of a thing you can find is not usually the ideal example to use for most contexts. Rather than clarifying things, if it dwarfs the context, it then appears automatically ridiculous even if the basic argument is sound.
  - madez 12y ago
    > A story about a two year old learning about agency would be a better example, This is not an example for official upholding of personal responsibility. > there are millions of better examples for this context. This is hand-waving. I used the Nuremberg trials specifically to not hand-wave.
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      "This is hand-waving. I used the Nuremberg trials specifically to not hand-wave." Now that is funny, though I suspect unintentionally, and in horrifically bad taste either way.
      - madez 12y ago

kemitchell 12y ago

Nuremberg? Wasn't the story about computer nerds or something? http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_2_scope_of_representation_allocation_of_authority_between_client_lawyer.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibilit... Many state bar associations have rules like that one. Lawyers can make good-faith arguments that their client's behavior isn't illegal. They can't break the law for their clients or help their clients break the law. No one should be stuck, unable to get a lawyer and put up a fair legal fight, just because some part of the population condemns them as amoral, but can't pass a law expressing that condemnation that stands up to civil liberties challenge. Lawyers should serve hated people, too, and ideally do for them just as they would do for themselves if they understood the law and the system. Lawyers who can do that for truly loathsome clients are superheroes. They often set aside deep feelings and strongly held personal convictions in the service of the greater value of a fairer legal system. It's a real-life Gom Jabbar test, and repeat sittings have driven many good lawyers to self-destruction, one way or another. So: If you don't want lawyers helping assholes, try and pass a law against being an asshole. It would be vague. Prejudiced assholes would wield it against legitimate non-assholes. Good lawyers defending actual assholes would kill it in court. More succinctly: https://youtu.be/WMqReTJkjjg?t=2m10s https://youtu.be/WMqReTJkjjg?t=2m10s

lotsofmangos 12y ago

If all that Hitler had done was get Goebbels to send out threatening letters to people who remarked that he had left his door unlocked, then referencing Nuremberg over lawyers sending cease and desist letters on behalf of a padlock manufacturer might not seem quite so ridiculous.