- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Question for judges and attorneys...Where does your morality (if any) come into play ?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 2:51 pm to boosiebadazz
Posted on 5/21/24 at 2:51 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Bonds is the final arbiter of all things lawyer around here.
Which statement of mine do you disagree with? You litigate, right? Are you absolutely certain your client is not guilty or at fault prior to representing them?
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 2:52 pm
1
Posted on 5/21/24 at 2:56 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Anyone that has ever been to court would agree. I guess if you’ve never been to court it’s just naivety and not disappointing.
Again, it's a weird take. I litigated for most of decade.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 3:03 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Again, it's a weird take. I litigated for most of decade.
And you are confident that you definitively knew that your client was not guilty or not at fault prior to signing the engagement letter?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 3:13 pm to loogaroo
Should be the law that draws the line. Feelings or morality should not come into it - if the law is wrong or bad or unconstitutional, it should be struck down or changed, it needs to be changed.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 3:20 pm to BBONDS25
Well first, you added the "at fault"/civil piece.
But second, for many of my cases that assessment wouldn't have made much sense. For example, if you're litigating some multimillion dollar lease termination provision with conflicting interpretations, is anyone really at fault - even the entity ultimately deemed to have the worse argument?
But second, for many of my cases that assessment wouldn't have made much sense. For example, if you're litigating some multimillion dollar lease termination provision with conflicting interpretations, is anyone really at fault - even the entity ultimately deemed to have the worse argument?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 3:21 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Well first, you added the "at fault"/civil piece. But second, for many of my cases that assessment wouldn't have made much sense. For example, if you're litigating some multimillion dollar lease termination provision with conflicting interpretations, is anyone really at fault - even the entity ultimately deemed to have the worse argument?
We are way into the weeds. It’s no big deal. I just found it odd an attorney would say “I would never represent a guilty person.” How could you possibly consistently determine that prior to engagement?
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 3:22 pm
Posted on 5/21/24 at 3:22 pm to loogaroo
Think about the schooling they go thru. They are basically trained to lie, cheat, & ateal ans run it all under the guise of “spinning” it in your favor to find any and every loophole there is.
If someone along the line messed up with the evidence handling or the police protocol . The system is so friicked up because it has become a system of lawyers creating new laws stacked on top of old laws and on&on to give these sociopaths job security and to keep us all boxed in legally. And the very good ones can get you out of that box if you have enough money to pay for your freedom!
I would truthfully say that about 90% of Lawyers have no conscience and are scum of the earth. I do know many of them unfortunately, and most are sociopaths at the very best.
If you’re one of the very few good ones on this board. I apologize. But to the liberal lawyers especially on this board, GFY!
If someone along the line messed up with the evidence handling or the police protocol . The system is so friicked up because it has become a system of lawyers creating new laws stacked on top of old laws and on&on to give these sociopaths job security and to keep us all boxed in legally. And the very good ones can get you out of that box if you have enough money to pay for your freedom!
I would truthfully say that about 90% of Lawyers have no conscience and are scum of the earth. I do know many of them unfortunately, and most are sociopaths at the very best.
If you’re one of the very few good ones on this board. I apologize. But to the liberal lawyers especially on this board, GFY!
Posted on 5/21/24 at 3:24 pm to boosiebadazz
In this case he's right. As a lawyer you have to keep an open mind and assume that the government ( if it's the government) is reaching and trying to railroad your client.....at least that is how I generally saw cases where a federal agency was at the forefront. Now civil matters between firms, etc. that's different. But in terms of culpability I owed it to my client to assume he/she/they/it was as minimally culpable.....or what good would I be.
Criminal stuff was interesting but I really handled White Collar stuff. So my clients were mostly trying to reduce whatever penalty any state actor was trying to get out of them. The few where there was actual jail time were minimal and then I was generally bringing in someone else to consult because I wasn't about to frick that up.
Criminal stuff was interesting but I really handled White Collar stuff. So my clients were mostly trying to reduce whatever penalty any state actor was trying to get out of them. The few where there was actual jail time were minimal and then I was generally bringing in someone else to consult because I wasn't about to frick that up.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 3:25 pm to Westbank111
quote:
And the very good ones can get you out of that box if you have enough money to pay for your freedom!
I just got a serious violent felony dismissed, and I assure you I'm not that expensive.
*ETA: that's the reverse lammo, bragging about the results at the expense of the fee (RIP)
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 3:27 pm
Posted on 5/21/24 at 3:31 pm to BBONDS25
It's not really something I have to deal with. When I litigated, it was always a sliding scale of "fault" anyway, it'd be hard to thing of some bright line clear liability matter in my practice. But we would make judgments in taking on matters - I've got no obligation to represent scumbags and it makes it more likely they're not going to pay me at some point.
My response to OP was more battling against the public perception that we're all just mired in these ethical and moral quicksand situations all the time. For a large portion of the legal community, it just isn't a thing (or is very rarely).
My response to OP was more battling against the public perception that we're all just mired in these ethical and moral quicksand situations all the time. For a large portion of the legal community, it just isn't a thing (or is very rarely).
Posted on 5/21/24 at 3:34 pm to Pettifogger
With M&A I would guess you are.
But, when you deal with people in civil and criminal. It's a wide gray area . Even my old corporate clients ( some were shady AF) I had to operate as though they were virtuous, just misunderstood.
I'm sure you've seen stuff in the M&A world where you've thought to yourself...." Yeah, somebody is gonna get fricked if I don't do this right.....and I don't want my client to be one of them and that means I don't want to be either"
It's all about "fricking".....legally speaking
But, when you deal with people in civil and criminal. It's a wide gray area . Even my old corporate clients ( some were shady AF) I had to operate as though they were virtuous, just misunderstood.
I'm sure you've seen stuff in the M&A world where you've thought to yourself...." Yeah, somebody is gonna get fricked if I don't do this right.....and I don't want my client to be one of them and that means I don't want to be either"
It's all about "fricking".....legally speaking
Posted on 5/21/24 at 3:37 pm to KiwiHead
Maybe I'm just further entrenched in law than I think, but I just don't really think of it being a moral matter when it comes to sophisticated entities trying to get the upper hand in a negotiation or contract interpretation, etc.
I can see that more so for an insurance company screwing over some individual or something, but even in my limited experience there the issues are often clear cut (ie, a policy does or does not have an exclusion for _____), etc.
I can see that more so for an insurance company screwing over some individual or something, but even in my limited experience there the issues are often clear cut (ie, a policy does or does not have an exclusion for _____), etc.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 3:44 pm to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:Correct. In fact your point is understated, and redundant. That issue was put to rest. It was addressed fully, much earlier in the thread.
It's not my job to insert my moral convictions relative to how I represent a client.
quote:No!
Ethics are rules that govern attorneys with regard to the duties they owe their clients and the legal profession.
Ethics are in no way specific to the legal profession. Nor is morality exclusive of it. In fact, morality and ethics enjoy a Venn intersection of sets inclusive of unethical behaviors in law as well as other fields.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 3:49 pm to Pettifogger
But on some level moral or ethical considerations do come into play. It's just not necessarily about someone's liberty or quality of life ( civil ) .
Posted on 5/21/24 at 3:50 pm to BBONDS25
I do civil work in a comparative fault state. I regularly take into account the possibility or probability that my client may have some comparative fault.
I took his comment to mean a criminal defendant who walks into his office and says “I did it; I raped her; but I need you to defend me”, and him declining representation. I don’t see an ethical problem with his stance there to decline representation.
I took his comment to mean a criminal defendant who walks into his office and says “I did it; I raped her; but I need you to defend me”, and him declining representation. I don’t see an ethical problem with his stance there to decline representation.
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 3:51 pm
Posted on 5/21/24 at 3:50 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
My response to OP was more battling against the public perception that we're all just mired in these ethical and moral quicksand situations all the time. For a large portion of the legal community, it just isn't a thing (or is very rarely)
I thought you mentioned earlier in this thread that you could never represent a guilty person. That seems like an ethical/moral dilemma in your mind, and resulting in a fairly strong stance rooted in ethical/moral principles. Or did I misunderstand your earlier post quoted above?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 4:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Hypothetically, Jack Smith decides he doesn't have enough Mar-a-Lago evidence. So he conspires with NARA to ship classified Trump associated documents from NARA-controlled storage in MD to Mar-a-Lago.
still has no place in this particular discussion, which is about the practice of law, not creation of law (which is where the above discussion on morality is placed).
As soon as Team MAGA accepts the shipment in FL, Smith requests the FBI raid MaL. There the FBI and Smith's thugs strew documents all over the floor, creating an appearance of massive disorganization. Then they affix classified designation cover sheets which in no way correspond to the document to which they are attached and photograph the scene.
IOW, they falsified evidence. Is that immoral behavior?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 4:16 pm to NC_Tigah
Nice scenario. Now prove it. That's what a lawyer has to do in a trial. Prove it. Step by step, document by document. Jack Smith could have done this (he was appointed SC after IIRC) but I'm gonna have to show or at least in the discovery phase that the government was up to this trickery and I better have emails, real official documents via FOIA, etc. I want to slow feed in the beginning so I can stuff him ultimately so he becomes that fat guy in The Meaning of Life so that when I feed him his mint he explodes because he can't take anymore.
What they do in that scenario is illegal, immoral and unethical. But I have to prove it, and I have to prove intent.....and I had better have my ducks in a row and then have back up.
What they do in that scenario is illegal, immoral and unethical. But I have to prove it, and I have to prove intent.....and I had better have my ducks in a row and then have back up.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 4:21 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
What they do in that scenario is illegal, immoral and unethical. But I have to prove it, and I have to prove intent.....and I had better have my ducks in a row and then have back up.
Wish the government was held to this same standard.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 5:21 pm to Pettifogger
How are you defining “guilty”?
That’s the real issue.
That’s the real issue.
Page 13 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News