What if a lawyer fouls up because his client orders him to do something?
The lawyers in the trump hush-money election interfeence cases appear to
have made several mistakes, a) starting off by claiming he never had sex
with her, iirc never even was alone with her, b) the very long cross of Daniels which tended to make her look sympathetic (instead of maybe a despicable porn performer), the claim that Cohen lied when he said he
talked to trump on the same call he talked to his assistent about the
14-year old harrasser (a claim later supported by a photograph taken 5 minutes before or after the phone call), the offering of Costello as a witness, the offering of any witnesses at all when they had no good ones (when offering any defense is like saying the prosecution actually made
some points).
Their reputation as competent lawyers seems in danger, but could be
preserved if they were able to say that trump ordered them to do the
very things that made them look bad. That is likely and believable, but would it not be a violation of attorney-client privelege to do this?
So what is to happen to these lawyers or others who foul up a case and
maybe even lose it because they are following the client's orders? Have
they no recourse?
In practice do they leak explanations to the press in violation of lawyer-client privelege? Or do they just hope their ealier reputation
will outweigh one trial? What do they do if they don't have a long or
strong earlier reputation?
Or is this an exception to lawyer-client privelege because it's not
about the guilt or liabilty of the client, only about his bad legal
advice?
Has there ever been a general answer to the defence of "just obeying
orders" ?
I wonder what some Germans might think ?
What if a lawyer fouls up because his client orders him to do something?
The lawyers in the trump hush-money election interfeence cases appear to
have made several mistakes, a) starting off by claiming he never had sex
with her, iirc never even was alone with her, b) the very long cross of >Daniels which tended to make her look sympathetic (instead of maybe a >despicable porn performer), the claim that Cohen lied when he said he
talked to trump on the same call he talked to his assistent about the
14-year old harrasser (a claim later supported by a photograph taken 5 >minutes before or after the phone call), the offering of Costello as a >witness, the offering of any witnesses at all when they had no good ones >(when offering any defense is like saying the prosecution actually made
some points).
Their reputation as competent lawyers seems in danger, but could be
preserved if they were able to say that trump ordered them to do the
very things that made them look bad. That is likely and believable, but >would it not be a violation of attorney-client privelege to do this?
So what is to happen to these lawyers or others who foul up a case and
maybe even lose it because they are following the client's orders? Have
they no recourse?
In practice do they leak explanations to the press in violation of >lawyer-client privelege? Or do they just hope their ealier reputation
will outweigh one trial? What do they do if they don't have a long or
strong earlier reputation?
Or is this an exception to lawyer-client privelege because it's not
about the guilt or liabilty of the client, only about his bad legal
advice?
On Sat, 25 May 2024 14:22:21 -0700, micky wrote:
What if a lawyer fouls up because his client orders him to do something?
The lawyers in the trump hush-money election interfeence cases appear to
have made several mistakes, a) starting off by claiming he never had sex
with her, iirc never even was alone with her, b) the very long cross of
Daniels which tended to make her look sympathetic (instead of maybe a
despicable porn performer), the claim that Cohen lied when he said he
talked to trump on the same call he talked to his assistent about the
14-year old harrasser (a claim later supported by a photograph taken 5
minutes before or after the phone call), the offering of Costello as a
witness, the offering of any witnesses at all when they had no good ones
(when offering any defense is like saying the prosecution actually made
some points).
Their reputation as competent lawyers seems in danger, but could be
preserved if they were able to say that trump ordered them to do the
very things that made them look bad. That is likely and believable, but
would it not be a violation of attorney-client privelege to do this?
So what is to happen to these lawyers or others who foul up a case and
maybe even lose it because they are following the client's orders? Have
they no recourse?
In practice do they leak explanations to the press in violation of
lawyer-client privelege? Or do they just hope their ealier reputation
will outweigh one trial? What do they do if they don't have a long or
strong earlier reputation?
Or is this an exception to lawyer-client privelege because it's not
about the guilt or liabilty of the client, only about his bad legal
advice?
Has there ever been a general answer to the defence of "just obeying
orders" ?
I wonder what some Germans might think ?
"micky" wrote in message news:6rf45jd62nb9593hggqmp709hkeutsdroo@4ax.com... >>
What if a lawyer fouls up because his client orders him to do something? >>The lawyers in the trump hush-money election interfeence cases appear to >>have made several mistakes, a) starting off by claiming he never had sex >>with her, iirc never even was alone with her, b) the very long cross of >>Daniels which tended to make her look sympathetic (instead of maybe a >>despicable porn performer), the claim that Cohen lied when he said he >>talked to trump on the same call he talked to his assistent about the >>14-year old harrasser (a claim later supported by a photograph taken 5 >>minutes before or after the phone call), the offering of Costello as a >>witness, the offering of any witnesses at all when they had no good ones >>(when offering any defense is like saying the prosecution actually made >>some points).
Their reputation as competent lawyers seems in danger, but could be >>preserved if they were able to say that trump ordered them to do the
very things that made them look bad. That is likely and believable, but >>would it not be a violation of attorney-client privelege to do this?
So what is to happen to these lawyers or others who foul up a case and >>maybe even lose it because they are following the client's orders? Have >>they no recourse?
In practice do they leak explanations to the press in violation of >>lawyer-client privelege? Or do they just hope their ealier reputation >>will outweigh one trial? What do they do if they don't have a long or >>strong earlier reputation?
Or is this an exception to lawyer-client privelege because it's not
about the guilt or liabilty of the client, only about his bad legal
advice?
The lawyers are working for Trump and presumably well-paid. They can resign >at any time if they don't believe they can work with the defendant. The >lawyers run the case in the best way their experience allows after >consultation with the defendant.
They are responsible for how they come
across and the effects on their reputation. Again they can quit at any
time.
--
The lawyers are working for Trump and presumably well-paid. They can
resign at any time if they don't believe they can work with the defendant. The lawyers run the case in the best way their experience allows after consultation with the defendant. They are responsible for
how they come across and the effects on their reputation. Again they
can quit at any time.
In misc.legal.moderated, on Mon, 27 May 2024 10:16:19 -0700 (PDT),
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:
"micky" wrote in message >>news:6rf45jd62nb9593hggqmp709hkeutsdroo@4ax.com...
What if a lawyer fouls up because his client orders him to do something? >>>The lawyers in the trump hush-money election interfeence cases appear to >>>have made several mistakes, a) starting off by claiming he never had sex >>>with her, iirc never even was alone with her, b) the very long cross of >>>Daniels which tended to make her look sympathetic (instead of maybe a >>>despicable porn performer), the claim that Cohen lied when he said he >>>talked to trump on the same call he talked to his assistent about the >>>14-year old harrasser (a claim later supported by a photograph taken 5 >>>minutes before or after the phone call), the offering of Costello as a >>>witness, the offering of any witnesses at all when they had no good ones >>>(when offering any defense is like saying the prosecution actually made >>>some points).
Their reputation as competent lawyers seems in danger, but could be >>>preserved if they were able to say that trump ordered them to do the
very things that made them look bad. That is likely and believable, but >>>would it not be a violation of attorney-client privelege to do this?
So what is to happen to these lawyers or others who foul up a case and >>>maybe even lose it because they are following the client's orders? Have >>>they no recourse?
In practice do they leak explanations to the press in violation of >>>lawyer-client privelege? Or do they just hope their ealier reputation >>>will outweigh one trial? What do they do if they don't have a long or >>>strong earlier reputation?
Or is this an exception to lawyer-client privelege because it's not
about the guilt or liabilty of the client, only about his bad legal >>>advice?
The lawyers are working for Trump and presumably well-paid. They can >>resign
at any time if they don't believe they can work with the defendant. The >>lawyers run the case in the best way their experience allows after >>consultation with the defendant.
In the best way their experience and their required obedience to the
client wrt certain things allows. If he wants to testify, their
experience is not enough to stop that, and they have to call him,
right?. Are there other things
They are responsible for how they come
across and the effects on their reputation. Again they can quit at any >>time.
At any time? I thought they need permission from the judge to quit, >especially if it's in the middle of the trial, especially in cases where >there is only one defense lawyer (which I presume is most of the time.)
Are you saying the lawyer1 would explain to the judge what things the
client insists that lawyer1 do, and based on that, the judge would let
him quit?
Say he didn't quit, didn't ask to quit. Is it a violation of
attorney-client to say, My client supervised how I put on the case.?
Probably not.
But if he said, "My client insisted I say he never met her", that would
tend to imply the lawyer1 thinks he did meet her or he wouldn't have to
be forced to say that he didn't. (I know there can be other reasons, but
lets assume a scenario when that is by far the most likely.) Even if
it's only an implication, that seems to me to violate atty-client. Other >lawyers might well understand what happened without the first lawyer1 >explaining it, but the average person looking for a lawyer will only
know that lawyer1's client was convicted.
--
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 360 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 136:32:24 |
| Calls: | 7,686 |
| Files: | 12,831 |
| Messages: | 5,711,624 |