South Carolina shooting - defence lawer drops accused cop after seeing video

TOMs WIFE

Interesting article on Bloomberg questioning whether it is correct for a defence lawyer to drop his client (the cop caught on video shooting the guy in South Carolina) after the lawyer saw the video.

Views? I agree with the view of the writer.


South Carolina Cop Deserves a Better Lawyer
Noah Feldman

The correct ethical response to the video of Officer Michael Slager shooting Walter Scott in the back is to condemn the crime -- with one exception. The exception is Slager’s attorney, who has an ethical obligation as a lawyer to defend his client, not to abandon him or harm him by a public act of distancing. Yet in an interview with the Daily Beast, Slager’s lawyer did just that, dropping his client like a hot potato and strongly implying that Slager either had been set on a course of perjury or was simply too repulsive to represent.

Obviously, the overwhelming cause for outrage here is the apparent murder of an unarmed, fleeing black man by a police officer in North Charleston, South Carolina. But the whole point of having defense attorneys is that they’re especially necessary when the whole world considers their client immediately guilty. It’s therefore worth spending a moment examining what Slager's lawyer did and said -- and why it was an ethical mistake for him to act like any other ordinarily moral person.

Start with the decision by the lawyer, David Aylor, to drop his client. Aylor declined to say exactly why he fired Slager as a client. In the interview, the lawyer said, “I can't specifically state what is the reason why or what isn't the reason why I'm no longer his lawyer. All I can say is that the same day of the discovery of the video that was disclosed publicly, I withdrew as counsel immediately.”

The Model Rules of Professional Conduct promulgated by the American Bar Association and adopted with trivial changes by the South Carolina Supreme Court provide for several circumstances in which a lawyer must or may withdraw from representing a client. The lawyer is only obligated to withdraw if the representation would lead him to break the rules or the law, if he's physically or mentally unable, or if he's fired.
None of those circumstances would appear to apply to Aylor. He could certainly represent Slager zealously without breaking the law. Think of the lawyers for the Los Angeles police officers who were recorded beating Rodney King. The world considered their clients guilty, but they got the officers acquitted of state charges nevertheless.

That means it's overwhelmingly likely that Aylor withdrew from the case under one of the rules that allows voluntarily dismissal of a client. The first condition is that “withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client.”
It’s very difficult to argue that Slager’s lawyer could resign on the very day that his client became a nationally known villain without materially harming Slager’s interests. The withdrawal itself looks to every ordinary observer like a statement that even Slager’s lawyer now considers his conduct indefensible.
Add to the withdrawal itself the possibly more outrageous decision by the lawyer to give a public interview to underscore the resignation. Aylor clearly wanted to engage in a public act of distancing -- which is to say, of condemnation. He wanted the world to know that he wanted no part in defending a client who was so repulsive.

If this distancing and implicit condemnation by his lawyer doesn't materially harm Slager, I'm not sure what would. Slager can get a new lawyer, of course. But he can't easily undo the damage from his own lawyer seeming to come out against him.

The details of the interview with lawyer make things worse. Aylor strongly implied to the interviewer that information in the video made him doubt Slater’s veracity. He said he “first became aware of” the video “via the media. In fact, a reporter sent it to me via e-mail.” Then he explained: “I'm not going to analyze the video, but again ... the video came out and within the hours of the video coming out, I withdrew my representation of the client.” It's hard to avoid the implication that Slager hadn’t told his lawyer what really happened, and that lawyer withdrew at least in part because he thought his client had misled him.

Under the bar rules, a lawyer may withdraw if he believes his client has used him to act in a “criminal or fraudulent” manner or intends to continue acting that way, or if “the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement.” By his withdrawal, Aylor arguably implied that he believed one of these circumstances existed -- that Slager was lying to the world in a way that could be considered fraudulent or criminal or at least repugnant. Saying that you aren’t guilty when you are guilty doesn’t count as fraud or repugnant behavior, otherwise many defendants would lose their lawyers. The implication would seem to be that the lawyer thought Slager intended to commit perjury.

What’s wrong with a lawyer abandoning a client who looks guilty and may have misled him? The answer lies in the systemic need for a strong defense for every accused criminal -- especially those who stand convicted in the court of public opinion. I think Slager must be guilty, for the reasons everyone else does. And that’s exactly why he needs a zealous lawyer to take his side and tell us we may be wrong.

In China, public outrage would guarantee a conviction dictated by Communist Party officials. In the U.S., the adversarial system demands that the defense be heard, in the hopes of getting all the facts. If the video evidence is misleading or incomplete, it’ll be the job of Slager’s lawyers to tell us that.
Slager’s lawyer didn’t just do his client a disservice by quitting and talking about it. He harmed our justice system itself.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pat Mustard

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

Slager’s lawyer didn’t just do his client a disservice by quitting and talking about it. He harmed our justice system itself.

What I can't understand is that the lawyer gave an interview in the first place, explaining the circumstances surrounding his withdrawal from the case:

Link

You were quoted as Officer Slager's attorney in the aftermath of this high-profile shooting but before the video came out. Now you're not his attorney anymore. What happened?


I can't specifically state what is the reason why or what isn't the reason why I'm no longer his lawyer. All I can say is that the same day of the discovery of the video that was disclosed publicly, I withdrew as counsel immediately. Whatever factors people want to take from that and conclusions they want to make, they have the right to do that. But I can't confirm from an attorney-client standpoint what the reason is.

All he had to say was: 'no comment'.

Pat Mustard

Mod

I had to delete the last post.

Even if this case is in another country, it isn't appropriate to comment on the defendant in a live case.

coylemj

The lawyer issued an original statement stating what the cop had told him viz. that Scott had grappled with him and taken the taser and that's why he shot him. The problem that lawyer would have defending the cop in front of a jury is that having issued that statement (presumably in good faith), he would then have no credibility using an alternative defence.

I can see how he was seriously compromised and it's understandable that he's stepping aside though I can also see how some would interpret it as him 'firing' his client.

ScouseMouse

I apologise if this it a bit O.T., but could it be down to personal views of right and wrong? If the lawyer may be unhappy defending something he disagrees with but is he allowed to withdraw.

Could it be a similar angle to the American religious bakers who didn't agree to bake a gay cake?

coylemj

ScouseMouse wrote: »

I apologise if this it a bit O.T., but could it be down to personal views of right and wrong? If the lawyer may be unhappy defending something he disagrees with but is he allowed to withdraw.

It is OTT, criminal lawyers aren't in the business of making moral judgements about who they defend.

A jury can sit there and listen to a defence lawyer and they can go along with the notion that he believes his client to be innocent. The lawyer in this case is hopelessly compromised by having being used by the cop to issue what we now know was a statement containing a completely false account of what happened.

ScouseMouse wrote: »

Could it be a similar angle to the American religious bakers who didn't agree to bake a gay cake?

No, how you can compare the two cases is frankly bizarre.

Pat Mustard

ScouseMouse wrote: »

I apologise if this it a bit O.T., but could it be down to personal views of right and wrong? If the lawyer may be unhappy defending something he disagrees with but is he allowed to withdraw.

Could it be a similar angle to the American religious bakers who didn't agree to bake a gay cake?

Lawyers' ethics have different nuances to ethics associated with religion. Most lawyers will leave religion at home, when doing the job. Apart from duties to the court, the right/wrong aspects of lawyers' work in defending clients on criminal charges generally refer to doing a competent job or not.

Also, criminal lawyers defend unsavoury individuals all the time. It's not really an issue.

Zambia

I have heard solicitors tell clients on several occasions, "I am not saying that" when given ridiculous accounts by their clients.

My take on what Alyer said was that Slager lied to him and if you can't believe your client, well it's like being a goalie and not knowing what size goal your defending,

Guy:Incognito

Zambia wrote: »

My take on what Alyer said was that Slager lied to him and if you can't believe your client, well it's like being a goalie and not knowing what size goal your defending,

Defense lawyers must be some bunch of gullible fools in general so.:)

Zambia

I would strongly disagree, in many cases they simply tell their client you should have taken my advice. But in this case there would be no doubt if the account was a complete lie. Had Slager told Ayler a story that matched the footage he probably would have stayed.

I get your joking though

cml387

A lot of my knowledge of the law came from watching Rumpole Of The Bailey
In one episode he discovered that he'd been lied to by his client and he immediately withdrew from the case.

Uno my Uno.

From the Lawyer's comments I would surmise that it became apparent that Slager intended to perjure himself. I'm not familiar with the Code of Conduct in South Carolina but I imagine that it requires Attorneys to refuse to act in such circumstances. It is the same for Solicitors in this jurisdiction.

Compared to how the Media here handle Criminal proceedings things are very different in the US. It is common for the Police, lawyers, witnesses and the accused to give interviews before during and after trials with little or no restrictions. In that context its not surprising that the Lawyer gave the interview he did. Here in Ireland I would expect his colleagues to take a very dim view of it but over there it maybe seen as part of the job or even a good business move!

The_Minister

Obviously I'm not an American lawyer, but had it been me...


...I would have waited, and so should he.

There's nothing immediate coming up he could have told the Defendant to find a new lawyer and hung on for a month.

If the Defendant wanted him to do something unethical before then, well he'd have to go.

Mellor

ScouseMouse wrote: »

I apologise if this it a bit O.T., but could it be down to personal views of right and wrong? If the lawyer may be unhappy defending something he disagrees with but is he allowed to withdraw

He's a defense lawyer, everyone is entitled to a defense. His personal opinion on the crime isn't really relevant.

The_Minister wrote: »

If the Defendant wanted him to do something unethical before then, well he'd have to go.

What could he want him to do that was unethical?
The lawyer could avoid the defendant committing perjury by keeping him off the stand.