Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: T
In one of Law & Order’s “ripped from the headlines” episodes titled “House Counsel,” a juror in a mob trial is found dead. Law enforcement investigates and learns that the mobster tampered with the juror in order to avoid a conviction and then killed him to keep him quiet. The lawyer defending the mobster is a good friend of Assistant District Attorney Jack McCoy. Later in the investigation, McCoy discovers that his friend may have played a role in the jury tampering. When he suspects his friend is involved, McCoy sees an opportunity to get the mobster and prosecutes the attorney for the murder to leverage information about the mobster. In the end, the lawyer is convicted and the attorney-client privilege between the lawyer and the mobster is dissolved. In the case that allegedly inspired the episode, prosecutors moved to remove a mobster’s attorneys from a case because there was evidence that the attorneys knew the crimes would be committed. Therefore, the attorneys could be called as witnesses. Prosecutors contended that the attorneys were in fact “house counsel” for the mob. The attorneys were removed. Law & Order, meet the modern in-house banking counsel. Since 2008, the banking industry has been under particularly close scrutiny by regulators and law enforcement. The added scrutiny is resulting in increasing enforcement actions against the banks. As part of recent enforcement actions in other industries, law enforcement and regulators have taken actions against the in-house counsel personally. An effective way to mitigate the risk to in-house counsel is to retain outside counsel to deal with subpoenas and investigations, and work with in-house counsel on responses to formal and even some informal governme... ... middle of paper ... ...the attorney to reveal privileged information “to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client's commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer's services,” this may result in the creation of an uncomfortable work environment. So, some prosecutors and regulators may ask, is the in-house counsel really independent? Given the difficulty in navigating these unique challenges, in-house counsel have been increasingly targeted as part of governmental investigations and regulatory actions. This is especially true in cases where the government believes the in-house counsel was not acting as an attorney and can provide useful information against the client. In Part II, we will look at some of these examples.
Joseph P. Reilly filed a complaint against Gwynne G. Zisko, Esq., on or about April 8, 2016. Reilly asserts that Zisko violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by serving a subpoena on his employer, the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Department. The details of the case relating to the subpoena will be discussed further on in this report. Within the complaint, Reilly alleges that Zisko has violated Mass.R.Prof.C. 3.4, as well as 4.4.
Authors Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld founded the innocence project at a law school in New York City, which has assisted in the exoneration of an astonishing number of innocent individuals. As legal aid lawyers, they blithely engaged in conflicts that implicated
Facts of the Case: “The defendant Anthony Faretta was accused of grand theft in Los Angeles, CA. Prior to the trial, the defendant requested permission to represent himself” (Gardner, 2000). Mr. Faretta stated that he had once represented himself in a criminal case and that he believed that his court order attorney could not efficiently advise him due to other priorities.
...f-regulate? A reasonable case for increased regulation can be made given the massive cost of recent financial turmoil and attorneys’ ostensible role in these crises. Moreover, as lawyers effectively operate as gatekeepers and rubberstamps for much of business decsionmaking, they may serve as the most efficient risk bearer to reduce externalized costs, whether through a division of ethical responsibilities between in-house attorneys and independent firms or simply staying the drastic course of Lawson. This modification of the role of attorneys does present a difficult contradiction as the exact value added by lawyers is leveraged into a social duty and it’s not obvious whether the two can co-exist. Given the relative lack of traction and progress, however, it seems the stickiness of established behavior may present too much value, for attorneys and clients alike.
Paralegals are continuing to assume new responsibilities in legal offices and perform many of the same duties as attorneys. Through formal education, training and experience, paralegals have knowledge and expertise regarding the legal system and law procedures, which qualify them to work under the supervision of an attorney. Along with preparing legal documents, contracts and other legal materials, a paralegal can also interview witnesses, and conducting legal research. The most important task a paralegal may have is helping an attorney prepare for hearings, trials, and meetings. Although a paralegal is trained to perform the same tasks as attorneys, they are explicitly prohibited from carrying out duties considered to be within the scope of the practice of law, such as setting legal fees, giving legal advice, submitting signed documents to court, and presenting cases in court. Paralegals are an essential part of today’s legal practice; furthermore, a competent paralegal can improve a law office’s profitability and the delivery of legal services. With these new responsibilities comes a higher level of demand and respect. In turn...
People with money think they have the ability to get away with their unlawful actions, to buy their freedom. In the show Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, in the episode “Wonderland”, Sarah Walsh was a victim of rape. She was unaware of who had raped her but eventually found out her rapist appeared to be one of her “friends” who was very wealthy. He had paid off his other victims to keep him away from the title of a criminal. Throughout the show, you can see the way people with money think about their position and the law. In the episode “Wonderland” of Law and Order: SVU, the creator portrays that criminals with money are punished not as severely as average income people. The issue of people who believe,
Congress amended Title 18, United States Code, § 1512(c)(2) of the Victim and Witness Protection Act to provide additional protection to witnesses in ongoing investigations. The statute criminalizes "whoever corruptly… obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding." 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) (2012). The question presented is whether the broad language of § 1512(c)(2) suggests that an "official proceeding" encompasses a joint-task force investigation, pursuant to Congressional intent.
In Dick Wolf’s television show Law and Order: Special Victims Unit episode entitled “Home Invasions” the writer conveys the message that people cannot take the law into their own hand. In the episode the detectives from the New York police department’s special victim’s unit investigate the homicide of a gay rights activist and her husband as well as the attempted homicide of their young daughter. As the investigation progressed throughout the show it is discovered that the father was sexually assaulting his daughter. As a result of this abuse the daughter confided in her housekeeper and the housekeepers brother. The daughter conspired with the housekeeper and the housekeeper’s brother to arrange the homicide of her parents. I agree with
We are writing to highlight an issue of concern in regards to protected and privileged attorney-client communications that may be in your custody. This issue is being raised, first, because of concerns that state actors may have spoken with or obtained, indirectly from third parties, information that would be considered privileged from Stanford A. Graham. Because Mr. Graham acted as counsel for individuals and entities that are targeted by state action, all communication, indeed all information he possesses would be considered to be protected and inaccessible by the state.
Historically, the right to counsel was only guaranteed in federal criminal court (Wice, 2005). A person charged with a crime in the state court did not have the right to legal representation. Law scholar Professor Mason Beaney explained this by saying, “only a few states guaranteed the right to appointed counsel…In most jurisdictions counsel was appointed in none but the most serious cases, often only when the crime was punishable by death” (Wice, 2005, p. 3). Many defendants, who were poor, illiterate, and uneducated had to face the justice system without legal assistance (Smith, 2004, p. 579). Los Angeles County started one of the first public defender programs in 1914, spreading slowly to other counties (Neubauer & Fradella, 2011, p. 176). By the 1960’s, less than a dozen states still refused to provide attorneys to defendants unable to afford one (Smith, 2004).
As an effect of having attorney client privilege, this could cause guilty criminals to be out and about roaming the everyday world that we live in. The convicted client chooses the facts and details that they would like to reveal to their attorney to supply them with what they need to present their strongest case defending their client. Have you ever heard of a repeat offender? A repeat offender is someone who is convicted of a crime after having been previously convicted for one or more crimes. If an attorney knows their client is guilty from the information that their client has exposed to them, they are not legally allowed to share the valuable truth with higher authority. Do you want a possible high-profile killer living beside you and those you love? Well, if the truth took...
With law enforcement lying, it makes it hard for citizens to depend on law enforcement. In the article, “All the Court’s a stage, and All the Lawyers Players: Leading and Misleading the Jury” Richard Zitrin and Carol Langford explain what really happens in the courts. They state, “Abraham Dennison is the most successful trial lawyers in Port City. He is smoother than silk outside of the courtroom, but in court he takes on a bumbling, aw-shucks persona.” They explain how Dennison changes the clothes he wear, and his clients to look like they are not privileged. He even dumbs down he’s speeches when talking. I might have to say it is a very smart tactic to win over the jurors. The main goal in court is to sell your client to the jury so they will feel bad for him/her. According to this article, “Dennison tells his young associates to ‘select a biased jury, it wins the case.’” By picking the right jury you can sell your clients innocence. It is sad you have to bend the truth in order to win a case. The fact one has to pick the right jury who would feel sorry for one, and act like one is uneducated in order to win a case is sad. This is bending the truth to people thinking something totally different. One should win a case by the facts, not how you hold yourself. An example of lawyers actually lying to win a case of a guilty man is the ‘affluenza’ case. In the article “Before
Deciphering differences between absolute and qualified immunities is sometimes difficult. Typically, absolute immunity shelters one from a lawsuit of liability despite his state of mind at the time the violation of constitutional rights occur. Under present laws, prosecutors are protected under absolute immunity for their multitude of functions. The U.S. Supreme Court has advised that this is a limited safeguard of authority. Once a defendant is arrested, a prosecutor is immune from a suit for details “intimately associated” with a legal portion of a criminal process, for which there is probable cause, for the arrest. All other actions not associated with the legal portion of a case, qualified immunity is applied to the prosecutor. The protection
The most basic principle underlying the lawyer-client relationship is that lawyer-client communications are privileged, or confidential. This means that lawyers cannot reveal clients’ oral or written statements to anyone, including prosecutors, employers, friends, or family members, without their clients’ consent. It doesn’t matter whether defendants confess their guilt or insist on their innocence, attorney-client communications are confidential. Both court-appointed lawyers and private defense attorneys are equally bound to maintain client confidences. This paper addresses the issues that attorneys could possibly face involving the
The rule of law, simply put, is a principle that no one is above the law. This means that there should be no leniency for a person because of peerage, sex, religion or financial standing. England and Wales do not have a written constitution therefore the Rule of Law, which along with the parliamentary Sovereignty was regarded by legal analyst A.C Dicey, as the pillars of the UK Constitution. The Rule of Law was said to be adopted as the “unwritten constitution of Great Britain”.