Comments on: Legal Ethics Heresy

By: Mark Bennett

Mark Bennett — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:39:49 +0000

That the DRs have quibbles and exceptions doesn’t make them any more infallible. They may well be too narrow. What I’m saying is that we ought to use our own judgment in every case.

By: shg

shg — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:54:53 +0000

I swore to stay with my wife for the rest of my life in good times and in bad, but if she decides to go fuck someone else, I’m willing to break that oath.

If?

By: Tarian

Tarian — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:34:57 +0000

This was a great post, Mark. And for once I agree with you wholeheartedly. Please don’t let that discourage you. But I’m pretty sure (read: too lazy to verify by looking it up) that most of the DRs have exceptions or justifications for violating them just like the necessity and justification provisions of the Penal Code. If so and you’re already taking these into account, are you saying they are too narrow?

By: brian tannebaum

brian tannebaum — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:25:08 +0000

We talk about people who “follow the law,” and we talk about people who “always do the right thing.” Sometimes the law “is an ass” and doesn’t help us (meaning all of us in the system) do “the right thing.

As to the prior post about the man who was in prison because their lawyer(s) kept confidential that someone else had committed the crime, that case has bothered me since I first heard about it. Me, sorry, I’m willing to go do something else in life if the Bar takes my license because I won’t let an innocent man serve time in prison.

I swore to stay with my wife for the rest of my life in good times and in bad, but if she decides to go fuck someone else, I’m willing to break that oath.

Hiding behind ethics rules to protect you from doing the “right thing,” sometimes makes you part of the problem, and not the solution.

By: Mark Bennett

Mark Bennett — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:02:24 +0000

Pinche baboso, they may speak Spanish in Mexico, but it’s not what they speak in Castile. “Pendejo” is Latin American slang, and doesn’t even have the Mexican connotation—ignorance and incompetence combined with arrogance (as, for example, demonstrated in your comment)—everywhere in Central America.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:44:27 +0000

Sometimes rules must be broke for a sort of higher good or justice to prevail. It seems an odd thing to say, from a lawyer’s perspective, but there are some things our legislated laws cannot account for.

By: Linus

Linus — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:21:13 +0000

Well, I’m with you as to the process. Most “ethical dilemmas” don’t require too much weighing for a human being to determine that following the rule is the right way to go. Some examples (such as those you’ve given, like your family being in danger) are the same, but in the other direction. You violate the rule, and damn the torpedoes. But the tough ones require the careful sifting, and the integrity to follow Bennett’s rule about accepting the consequences.

For what it’s worth, I think the example of the guys from a few days ago is one of the tough ones, that would need careful thought. For myself, I’d probably bite the bullet. But I also don’t think it’s in the category of “self-evidently true.” Sure, it is self-evident that it’s bad for an innocent man to spend 25 years in prison for something he didn’t do, just like it’s self-evident that breaking your client’s confidences is bad. Which one of those bad things is less bad than the other is not self-evident.

I also think that those tough decisions are pretty rare. But your mileage may vary.

By: RNDMNDBRWN

RNDMNDBRWN — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 04:20:12 +0000

Hard and fast adherence to any set of rules is a shame and counterproductive. Hey, Mark, I don’t claim to know all things Mexican but I’m pretty sure they speak Spanish, pendejo!!