Should lawyers tell the truth always?

theTinker

I thought of this while reading the immoral thread which mentions a 'immoral lawyer'.
I then start considering what would be the impact of lawyers always telling the truth?
Surely if the truth is to be found in court then a lawyer should tell the court if they know the client is guilty rather than covering it up?
I think that if lawyers were to tell the truth then much more people would find it difficult to get lying lawyers into court and so would be judged more accurate. I also see that this would lead to people looking for shady lawyers, but is this not what all lawyers are if they are suppose to hide thier clients guilt?(assuming thats the way they work atm ye, I think they are suppose to defend thier clients regardless of truth.). Surely again that a reduction in shady lawyers is a good thing in court?
Is it really only money(which would go down if u were an honest lawyer) that drives the lies?

another note: If lawyers were to tell the truth, some lawyers would get ricch because they will lie. The goverment would need a way to weed out the lying ones as they are obstructing the law(an offense?) then they could set lawyers up, get an actor, get a lawyer, actor tells the lawyer hes guilty, if the lawyer doesnt show this in court then ban him from practicing? abit quirky i know but im hoping it shows my point.

Im hoping people will share thier views and opinions on this without resorting to insults if im completely off base, Im not trying to convert.

slipss

theTinker wrote:

I then start considering what would be the impact of lawyers always telling the truth?
Surely if the truth is to be found in court then a lawyer should tell the court if they know the client is guilty rather than covering it up?

Well a lawyer won't cover it up if they know you are guilty, say for instance you confess your guilt to them. A solicitor or barrister can't make a statement in court they know to be untrue. If you say to your barrister "look buddy, I killed that fella, I shot him in the head" then he can't stand up in court and say "Mr. Tinker is innocent of this crime". They would explain to you that they are incapable of pursuing a not guilty verdict for you and would tell you that you either had to plead guilty or get another barrister. However there is still a level of confidentiality maintained and they wouldn't be in a position to give evidence against you saying you told them previously that you are guilty. Regardless of the stereotype of laywers just lying through there teeth to get everyone off this deosn't happen, it takes a lot of work to become a barrister and if they were ever found to have lied in court they would no longer be able to practice law and would possibly face legal action so most wouldn't risk it. That being said of course there are crooked lawyers out there, just nowhere near as many as people would like to believe, trust me I've been trying to find myself a crooked do anything to get you off lawyer for years, they are very rare.

Raphael

theTinker wrote:

I then start considering what would be the impact of lawyers always telling the truth?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119528/

iFight

Often thought about that too. Interesting response slipss.

They are supposed to lie.

In any given court case one side is always lying. Most times both.

theTinker

slipss wrote:

all of the post, im not quoting it all

I had no idea that they were already suppose to not just cover it up. I guess i always assumed from films that a lawyer was like a doctor, they cant breath a word of ur stuff. tbh this depresses me, I thought we still had a shot at a fair system lol

Sangre

Its rarely the lawyer lying but rather the he is relying on 'altered' information the client has given him.

A lawyer's first duty is always to the integrity of the court and a judicial process, as a result lying to the court can risk de-barrment. Something that very few barristers will risk, (why bother, they already make loads as a result of their position?).

Sangre

theTinker wrote:

I had no idea that they were already suppose to not just cover it up. I guess i always assumed from films that a lawyer was like a doctor, they cant breath a word of ur stuff. tbh this depresses me, I thought we still had a shot at a fair system lol

Are you implying there isn't client/lawyer confidentiality? Well if you are that most certainly isn't the case.
Anything said for the purpose of giving or receiving advice is totally confidential and anything done for litigation or in anticipation of litigation is totally protected.
Basically, anytime your lawyer is acting as your lawyer (and not as a friend) then what you say can never be repeated in court.
Few rare exceptions e.g. if you tell a lawyer about a planned future offence. The lawyer will warn you anything further you say won't be protected, if you continue then you've no cover.

theTinker

Sangre wrote:

Are you implying there isn't client/lawyer confidentiality? QUOTE]

No, em...tats it.

alrite a lil more just for u. I knew there was a degree of confidentiality but not sure where it begun or ended. upabove we heard if u tell ur lawyer ur guilty, he cant represent u as innocent, are u saying otherwise? just curious.

also u say if u tell him u WILL be guilty of a crime, he doesnt protect u. I could understand that and agree with that, i think its necessary.

Sangre

Sorry I'm finding you slightly hard to follow, you're english/structure is a bit broken.

If a client informs his lawyer that is in fact guilty of the crime, the lawyer can not proceed with a guilty verdict. If the client objects then the lawyer must relieve himself from his position and the client must find a new lawyer. The former lawyer can't reveal why they changed and he can't tell anyone why he has left the client.

Macker

Sangre wrote:

Sorry I'm finding you slightly hard to follow, you're english/structure is a bit broken.

If a client informs his lawyer that is in fact guilty of the crime, the lawyer can not proceed with a guilty verdict. If the client objects then the lawyer must relieve himself from his position and the client must find a new lawyer. The former lawyer can't reveal why they changed and he can't tell anyone why he has left the client.

Why can't he proceed with a guilty verdict if that's what the client meant ,unless of course the client wants to plead not guilty after informing the lawyer of his guilt

slipss

Macker wrote:

Why can't he proceed with a guilty verdict if that's what the client meant ,unless of course the client wants to plead not guilty after informing the lawyer of his guilt

I think that was just a typo, he probably meant to say a not guilty verdict.

Black Swan

But where would many of our politicians get their training?:rolleyes:

theTinker

Sangre wrote:

Sorry I'm finding you slightly hard to follow, you're english/structure is a bit broken.

hmmm...thats a few times I've been told my writing is hard to follow, meaning gets lost n such. Any particular part thats particularly broken? Certainly would like to fix my style if its not correct. When i read it, it seems fine...

Sangre wrote:

If a client informs his lawyer that is in fact guilty of the crime, the lawyer can not proceed with a guilty verdict.

Well this part certainly puts a block on my idea of truthful lawyers...lol. I find it odd that if a lawyer knows somebody is guilty, that they aren't forced to tell the court. If I was a witness to a confession, am'nt I suppose to by law tell the gardai/court? The whole thing is riddled with oddities.

Sangre

Of course you should tell the gardai, you have no confidential relationship with said offender. A lawyer, however, does. They only told their lawyer because they know it can't be reason, they wouldn't have if they weren't. So its a bit of a mis-nomer.
Would a person tell a lawyer anything if they lawyer would just then go tell the court. This includes innocent people who would not want to be involved in vicarious liability e.g. car accident.
To get full, frank and accurate legal advice you need to tell your lawyer everything, there is no way a person is going to do that if a lawyer will just repeat it all to the court. For a lawyer to be able to function at all he needs to be able to reassure his client that what he says is confidential.

Also using full, non 'txt' writing might help people to understand you a bit more.

grumpytrousers

The position on what a lawyer/barrister can and cannot say re guilty and not guilty is effectively this.

Joe Bloggs goes and kills his wife. Goes to his lawyer and says "i'm being done for this, I didn't do it"

This goes to court (skipping a few fences here, right!) and the lawyer can, conscionably, enter a plea of "not guilty" for Joe Bloggs. Not Guilty does NOT mean "He didn't do it", it means "He's not saying he did it, and the State/Gardai have to prove he did do it". As things stand, as long as the lawyer conscionably believes (yes yes yes - stop laughing down the back:D) that Joe Bloggs didn't kill his wife, Joe Bloggs can be allowed to take the stand, hold a bible in his hand, swear an oath and give testimony that he didn't do it.

He might well have done it and he's perjuring himself and that's serious. If he's found guilty, he (probably) won't get done for perjury though.

CONTRAST WITH

Joe Bloggs goes and kills his wife. Goes to his lawyer and says "i'm being done for this, I DID it"

Joe Bloggs can still go to court and say "Not Guilty". The state still have to prove he did it. Here's the distinction. He can NOT BE ALLOWED to enter the box and perjure himself.

The 'benefit' of pleading Guilty is that the accused saves the court/state the time, hassle, money etc of running a case and in the sentence handed down, it will take this into account...

PedoBear

If my lawyer told the truth i'd be i jail for statutory rape, so no they shouldn't.

Terry

PedoBear banned.

Sangre

grumpytrousers wrote:

The position on what a lawyer/barrister can and cannot say re guilty and not guilty is effectively this.

Joe Bloggs goes and kills his wife. Goes to his lawyer and says "i'm being done for this, I didn't do it"

This goes to court (skipping a few fences here, right!) and the lawyer can, conscionably, enter a plea of "not guilty" for Joe Bloggs. Not Guilty does NOT mean "He didn't do it", it means "He's not saying he did it, and the State/Gardai have to prove he did do it". As things stand, as long as the lawyer conscionably believes (yes yes yes - stop laughing down the back:D) that Joe Bloggs didn't kill his wife, Joe Bloggs can be allowed to take the stand, hold a bible in his hand, swear an oath and give testimony that he didn't do it.

He might well have done it and he's perjuring himself and that's serious. If he's found guilty, he (probably) won't get done for perjury though.

CONTRAST WITH

Joe Bloggs goes and kills his wife. Goes to his lawyer and says "i'm being done for this, I DID it"

Joe Bloggs can still go to court and say "Not Guilty". The state still have to prove he did it. Here's the distinction. He can NOT BE ALLOWED to enter the box and perjure himself.

The 'benefit' of pleading Guilty is that the accused saves the court/state the time, hassle, money etc of running a case and in the sentence handed down, it will take this into account...

Not forgetting the lawyer can't enter his plea, nor can he continue with the case if Joe Bloggs is putting in a not guilty plea, as he will be lying to the court.

grumpytrousers

No - the lawyer can, even if the client DID do it, enter a plea of "Not guilty". Obviously the tack taken will be considerably different depending on what the lawyer knows...

for instance - Lawyer knows (has been told by) Joe Bloggs killed his wife; JB won't take the stand, and basically all that will be done by the defence is that holes will be picked in the evidence of the prosecution. The Defence won't be able to bring in an alibi that the lawyer KNOWS can't be true...i.e. Joe Bloggs friend who's willing to say that JB was playing snooker while in actual fact JB was attending to her with a lead-piping in the conservatory.

If the lawyer hasn't been told that JB did it, and enters the plea, obviously the tack will be one of bringing in alibis and not only attacking the Prosecution but also saying that it MUST have been somebody else. And of course if during THIS kind of strategy it becomes apparant that Joe Bloggs has been telling fibs to his OWN legal team, the lawyer will have himself excused from the case...

In other words from the lawyers perspective, you can tell "as truth" that which you believe to be true and that's it; if you believe that JB didn't kill his wife you can proceed as if that is the case...

EOA_Mushy

Blah, Blah, Blah, yakity smakity......

Simple, its a flawed system. I sat on a jury about 2 years ago. Just opinins from shady charactors. Not a single person who took the stand saw the crime.

Yet vast majority of the jury, largly made up of "did you see what so and so did down the road last week" people, decieded to convict!

How?

Sangre

whats that got to do with the system?