OT: question for attorneys out there

[Blakeon18]

I admit the motivation for this comes from the Patriot Hernandez situation but it really is meant just in general.

If a potential client comes to a lawyer and says that there may be serious charges coming up against him, does the attorney ask the potential client to tell him the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the matter before deciding to take the case? If he senses he is not getting precisely that, would that negatively influence his decision?

 

[cohenzone]

If a lawyer does not insist on knowing all of the facts, the lawyer can't possibly do the job correctly. It's up to the lawyer to decide what facts are needed and then how to use them. Getting too much information is better than missing necessary information. The lawyer needs to make sure the client knows that withholding information can come back to bite both of them and deprives the attorney of being able to make appropriate tactical and strategic decisions. The accused needs to understand that if the prosecution is doing a proper job, they will be out to discover everything they possibly can to use in the prosecution. Having reliable information also allows the attorney to make such important decisions as to whether or not have the client testify or plead the 5th. The lawyer is the one who has to grapple with ethical standards regarding permitting known lies to be uttered in testimony and to warn the client about perjury.

 

[meyers7]

Not a lawyer (nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express), but when it gets that point it's not whether the client is guilty or innocent, but rather what can be proven or not, or admitted in evidence or not.

 

[JimGunther]

This may seem a stupid question:

If a prospective client admits that "did it" (and offers convincing proof) can the Attorney take the case and have the client plead "not guilty" and offer a defense?

In other words, can you defend a client you KNOW (based on privileged conversation) is guilty.

 

[wire chief]

I have read that some criminal lawyers do not want the client's story. Seeking what the prosecutors have is much more essential.

 

[Waquoit]

In other words, can you defend a client you KNOW (based on privileged conversation) is guilty.

OJ had what, 20 lawyers?

 

[Tidepool]

This may seem a stupid question:

If a prospective client admits that "did it" (and offers convincing proof) can the Attorney take the case and have the client plead "not guilty" and offer a defense?

In other words, can you defend a client you KNOW (based on privileged conversation) is guilty.

The answer to both of your questions is yes.

 

[Kibitzer]

Posters here tend to use the terms lawyer and attorney interchangeably. Strictly speaking, a lawyer becomes an attorney only once engaged by a client. And Tidepool is correct. It is not a attorney's job to judge his client, it is his job to defend him/her and thereby place the burden of proof on the prosecutors and the verdict on the judge or jury.

Disclaimer: I refuse to debate this with JS. I concede any points he disputes in advance. After all, this is the Boneyard, not The Summitt or that Baylor message board.