Dear Mr. Logan,

Please allow us to introduce ourselves. We represented Mr. Wilson. He confessed to us back in 1983 that he committed the crimes for which you were punished. We decided not to reveal the information until after he died, meaning you spent 25 years in prison rotting for his deeds. Thank you for your understanding.

Despite unspeakable suffering you probably experienced at the hands of some of the most violent inmates in the State of Illinois, you will be proud to know that we upheld our oath and did not violate attorney-client privelege. We made the CHOICE, 25 years ago, that allegiance to an oath and to our client was more important than honor, integrity and truth. We realize it was inconvenient for you to miss weddings, funerals, birthdays, dinners at home with your family, going to sleep in your own bed and the like. However, we made a CHOICE that your freedom was less important than our client’s.

Once our client died, we still CHOSE not to reveal the truth until a judge told us it was okay. We are now ready to receive the thanks and the gratitude owed us by the State, our brethren in the legal community, and by YOU. While your incarceration was probably a little unpleasant, we have honored our oath and committment to a set of rules not based on justice and truth. Thanks again for your understanding.

. . . to the extent that your point was that one of the lawyers publicy stated “I had no choice”, when clearly he did. . .

What clued you in that that was my point? Did you happen to notice that that was my entire point? That I led off by saying that “I had no choice” was a lie, and closed with the lawyers’ eagerness “to substitute the dictates of the law for those of their own hearts”? That I never said or even implied that the outcome would have or should have been different if they had followed ethics instead of the law?

And you’re one of my sharper readers. I despair.

Certainly you would agree (I think you have as much said so already – or that I can infer it) that if breaking the DRs would almost conclusively not have helped Logan, then not breaking them was the correct course of action.

Let’s not forget that prosecutors, who as a group don’t let insignificant details like proof-of-actual-innocence-by-way-of-DNA deter their efforts to keep a he-had-a-jury-trial-didn’t-he? innocent defendant in prison, might not have cared a whit about the “supposed confession” and might well have figured out a way to keep Logan in prison.

Or maybe not. But it’s gotta factor into the decision.

Also:

The attorneys say they were so tormented over Logan’s imprisonment that they convinced Wilson to let them reveal that Wilson was the real killer after Wilson’s death.

Assuming that’s true (there doesn’t seem to be an affidavit to that effect in the “locked box”) it’s not like they did nothing. And it solves the 1983/2008 conundrum.

Also the lawyers were apparently retired when they came forward, so I tend to take them at their word that their main concern was not simply “Ouch, I might be disbarred”.

But to the extent that your point was that one of the lawyers publicy stated “I had no choice”, when clearly he did… I agree with you.

Dammit. This is one of those comments that went on so long that I’m regretting not just posting it on my own damn blog

I’m taking for granted that the lawyers’ testimony would have freed Mr. Logan as effectively in 1983 as in 2008. If you want to do the admissibility analysis, have at it—one possible outcome would have been that Wilson’s statements to Kunz were admissible in Logan’s favor, but not against Wilson. And oh, by the way, the attorney-client privilege survives the client’s death (by common law, which I believe Illinois follows in such matters), so if it was unethical for Kunz to reveal Wilson’s confidence in 1983, it was unethical in 2008.

You are correct that my critique is of the process, rather than the conclusion. I think Kunz’s craven statements of gratitude at being compelled to a course of action by a disciplinary rule gives us all of the insight into the process that we need.

This is the same question I have. Are you honestly advocating that lawyers break their oath, and/or violate ethical rules any time they feel the “higher law” compels them to do so? I haven’t seen any cite for the natural law upon which the higher law in this case is based. For the record, I agree with you, but I don’t see it as so self-evidently true that it’s beyond debate.

Maybe I missed something, but how would their testimony about what their client told them get into evidence to help the innocent fellow? Isn’t it hearsay? And just because they violate their ethical duties, doesn’t the court still have to uphold the privilege and exclude it? If you have a link to an analysis

Also, you seem quite critical of the process by which these gentlemen reached the conclusion they did. Was there something else besides this recent speech/presentation that gives us some insight (beyond the armchair kind) into their thought and logic process?

So why is it a problem that he renounces ethical responsibility for his actions (and “I had no choice” is a clear renunciation of ethical responsibility)?

It is a problem because it is founded in a lie. We always have a choice. My next post will demonstrate that, and will explain why it’s wrong ever to allow the rules to make ethical decisions for us.