law enforcement

criminal defense law

criminal defense law

Are lawyers supposed to receive admissions of guilt from their client? If a client confesses to his/her representation, wouldn’t that make it unethical to submit a plea of not guilty? For some reason, I have it in my head that clients, if guilty, are supposed to tell everything BUT the dirty deed for best representation. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance!

I’m not biased for/against defense lawyers. It’s not my area of interest, but it is interesting area of ethics nonetheless!

• 11 months ago

Additional Details

11 months ago

So the concept of a “plea of not guilty” is that simply a lack of a “plea of guily” which would otherwise be a waiver of jury trial?

I ask because otherwise it seems akin to perjury, hence my confusion over the ethics of an attorney submitting a plea. Who is responsible for the plea? Attorney or client? For instance who decides to plea not guilty by mental defect?

There’s an old adage that the first client of the criminal defense attorney is the US Constitution.

Most criminal defense lawyers don’t care whether their clients are guilty or not. They just want to ensure that the police and the prosecutors have done their jobs properly and ensure the criminal justice system is working. If they lose at trial, but are satisfied the the police and prosecutors did everything by the book, they generally don’t take it too hard. If the defense thinks a conviction is imminent, they will generally try a plea bargain to receive a lesser sentence for their client. Before anyone makes any judgment’s about the criminal defense attorney “trying to get his client off with a slap on the wrist”, they should also realize that the prosecutor has to agree to the deal, and the judge has to approve it. So if anyone is ever upset with a plea bargain, they need to realize that if the judge and prosecutor went along with it, its probably in the state’s best interest as well.

But to answer your question, see below.

ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.
…

So if a client confesses guilt to his lawyer, the above rule prohibits the lawyer from putting the client on the stand (refered to as “subornation of perjury”). If the lawyer knows the client is guilty, and the client doesn’t plead guilty, the case goes to trial. At trial, the lawyer can’t put the client on the stand, because the lawyer knows the client will lie about his or her innocence once they are on the stand. This is why defense lawyers don’t care whether their clients are guilty or not, and why they specifically tell their clients not to tell them if they are guilty or not. They don’t want to know, so they can put them on the stand.

Believe it or not, this rule is almost never violated. No lawyer would ever risk losing his license because his or her client is a liar.

And remember, OJ didn’t take the stand. Draw your own conclusion….