Issue
Is it the duty of an attorney under the State Bar of California to report possible crimes? Under what circumstances must the crime be reported? What penalties will the lawyer receive if their failure to report is discovered? In summary, what are the legal and ethical ramifications regarding an attorney’s obligation to report crimes?
Short Answer
It is the ethical duty of an attorney to report any violations of the law or legal misconduct, especially if the violation is committed by another attorney. While a civilian in the same situation may not be charged with a criminal offense, an attorney’s duty to uphold the law and maintain the honor of the profession obligates them to report crimes and legal misconduct. Penalties imposed
…show more content…
In regards to accessory after the fact, the third and fourth elements are not met, that is, the attorney did not act to aid the perpetrator in any way. Logically flowing from this conclusion, it is also unlikely that a conviction for obstruction of justice will be found, as no act was committed. However, due to the nature of the party and its guests, it is likely that the substance would very quickly be discovered and identified by law enforcement. Because the perpetrators exited the room quickly, it is also likely that they left behind identifying evidence, such as drug paraphernalia harboring fingerprints or DNA. Knowing this and taking into consideration their romantic feelings towards their colleague, it is possible for the attorney in question to decide to aid their colleague and conceal any remaining evidence. As soon as the attorney moves to conceal or destroy the evidence such as the mirror or spilled powder, their conduct has violated the law and they can be charged with accessory after the fact and obstruction of justice. This decision would preserve the trust and relationship between the attorney and their friend, however it opens up the possibility of legal action taken against the …show more content…
Conclusion Regarding whether or not an attorney should report a colleague and good friend for violating the law and severely breaching every aspect of professional conduct, it is the morally and legally correct choice to report the suspect to the proper law
Issue: Can the defendant be found guilty of the charges, because he was caught by a decoy? Miller believes that the Officer entrapped him, by tempting him with exposed
It is a plot line that seemed to come straight out of a John Grisham novel. After all it had all the major elements: a conspiracy, a corrupt corporation, but most importantly a lawyer examining his inner conscience only to decide to break with the status quo and expose his corporate masters. In fact, one could say that the film Michael Clayton (2007), was a modern day John Grisham film that never was. In all certainty, Michael Clayton is a typical Hollywood movie with a typical Hollywood ending where good defeats evil and where truth prevails over obfuscation.That does not mean that it should be dismissed so readily however. The film Michael Clayton still raises many of the ethical questions within the legal profession. Namely, the film explores the concept of the Attorney Client Privilege, and through its plot and rich storyline, questions the very notion of it. However, it is easy to forget that the film is a pure work of fiction; and although it does a adequate job of pointing out the disadvantages of the Attorney Client Privilege, its assertion that the privilege should be eroded when the attorney knows that his or her client is lying, is just as phantasmal as the scenes are which are in the film.
Now, this brings into question if public defenders are ethically competent to represent their client in court with such a workload. The Supreme Court states that if the criminal defense attorney does not review each lawsuit they receive with sufficient time and resources dedicated to each client “then both the system and the attorney are in breach of their ethical and constitutional obligations to that defendant” (Mosher). In other words, the lawyer assigned is not allowed to handle a case if they are forced to spend more time on one over the others
Each position in criminal justice holds power and responsibility, and therefore, it is very important that people in those positions do not abuse it. Unethical behavior in the criminal justice system takes away trust and respect from authority, and as a consequence, the law is more easily disregarded if the people lack faith in the system. It can, also, contribute to crime and/or cause citizens to not report crimes. Society should have indubitable confidence in the men and women of the criminal justice system. Law enforcement officers violating even the smallest rule could lead to more serious infractions.
...ut the Local Bar or Bar Association - Aren't They Supposed to Go After Crooked
Therefore, under these ethical standards, prosecutors cannot file charges if there is not enough evidence to support a conviction, they also do not file if it is not in the public interest to do so. This is what makes the possibilities limitless; however, three key factors also play a part in determining which cases to prosecute. If prosecutors follow these three factors in determining cases then the contradiction of limitless discretion and high ethical standards should be remedied for others. These are factors that should be followed are as followed: the seriousness and nature of the offense, the offender’s culpability, and the likelihood of being able to obtain a conviction at a trial. “Ethical conduct, then, must be the core of the prosecutor’s role in the criminal justice system” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). Therefore, even though prosecutors have almost limitless discretion in their decisions, they still must
Prosecutorial misconduct is when a prosecutor wrongfully convicts a defendant based on information he or she may keep concealed from a judge and/or jury. Ask the average citizen, and they are totally unaware that such a thing ever happens. The public is often persuaded to believe that all prosecutors are honorable people who are committed to ethics, justice, and upholding the law. But prosecutorial misconduct and misdeeds happen, and they occur more frequently than anyone would imagine. Judge Konzinski, stated to the Washington Post, “Prosecutorial misconduct is a particularly difficult problem to deal with because so much of what prosecutors do is secret. If a prosecutor fails to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense, who is to know? Or if a prosecutor delays disclosure of evidence helpful to the defense until the defendant has accepted an unfavorable plea bargain, no one will be the wiser.” No wonder society is naive to the prosecutorial misconduct that transpire
Take into consideration the auditors from Arthur Andersen. They did not take into consideration the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The auditors from Arthur Andersen took into consideration the consequences only for their own firm and their own well-being. Vinson & Elkins lawyers should not have destroyed evidence in order to protect their client Enron. Lawyers do take an oath to help protect and defend their client but they are not to help find ways for their client to violate the
The attorney’s office of the prosecutor is usually the one’s who decide whether charges should
Reaching epidemic proportions and spreading like a disease, prosecutorial misconduct has cut across geographic and socio-economic areas with the effect of infecting the criminal justice system (Lawless, 2008). Prosecutorial misconduct takes place when a prosecutor breaks the law or code of professional ethics during the prosecution stage. Legal and ethical violations can weaken the conformity to the law and rules that are to be followed within the criminal justice system (Cromwell, P. F., Dunham, R. G., & Palacios, W. R., 1997). In this paper, existing research focused on factors related to prosecutorial misconduct will be presented. This paper will also examine potential remedies that exist to confront prosecutorial misconduct.
Michael Huemer makes an argument that claims that “it is morally wrong for lawyers to pursue legal outcomes that they themselves know to be unjust”. This argument goes outside the idea that lawyers can or should help out their guilty client get free, with, of course inside the boundaries of the legal system. So, the gist of Michael Huemer’s argument is basically: it is wrong for an attorney to knowingly aid their guilty client go free. When you think about it, Michael Huemer’s argument has a point. Usually, if an attorney knows that his and/or her client is guilty of whatever crime they had committed, it is should be seen as morally wrong for that attorney to seek out an outcome where his guilty client goes unpunished.
Attorneys ensure that society has a place to seek and obtain justice, giving confidence that restitution and retribution can occur within the law. Attorneys have a difficult job. They must know the laws like they know the back of their hands. Attorneys attend school just as long or even longer than most doctors. They have the difficult job of defending their clients or prosecuting the bad guys.
The duty of confidentiality refers to attorneys and their duty to keep their clients confidential information confidential. Clients must have some guarantee that lawyers will not divulge any of their confidential information so that they are able to seek early legal assistance and the duty of confidentiality allows them to do so. This duty also allows the client to feel secure when consulting with an attorney so that the attorney is able to gather all the necessary information needed to provide effective representation. Confidential information is all information that relates to the representation of a client no matter where the information comes from (Orlik, D. Ethics for the Legal Professional. Pp. 80). Even if the information is known publicly it is considered confidential to the attorney and their agents if it is information that relates to the representation of their client.
There are many ethical issues in the movie Erin Brockovich. This movie is about a mother of three who uncovers a water poisoning case by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) in southern California. Once it was proved that the company had knowingly dumped hexavalent chromium into the ground water, the utility company was found liable for a $330 million dollar verdict.
Criminal Justice professionals are in positions of power and exercise power and authority over others. Therefore, it is important for them to study ethics because they must be aware of the ethical standards needed in making critical decisions involving discretion, force, and due process. It is also a fact that criminal justice professionals who exercise power and authority over others can be tempted to abuse their powers.