# What would a lawyer do in this situation of legal ethics?



## ironpony (May 15, 2016)

I was watching the movie ...And Justice for All (1979), and there was a scenario in the movie that I found interesting to compare mine to, and might be the same law for my story.

In the movie, a lawyer (Al Pacino's character) defends a client for murder, gets him off, and then the client goes out and does it again. The lawyer, reading about how the new murder was done methodically, realizes it's the same methods used by his client before.

So out of moral conscience he calls the police tells him of those similar methods of his client and the police use that as the basis of their investigation which leads to the clients arrest and charge. The lawyer is then under threat of being disbarred for 'betraying a client's trust' as the term that was used in the movie.

In my story, the MC, who is a rogue cop who is willing to break the rules in a case, wants revenge on the gang he is investigating after he feels they have gone too far with their crimes and gotten away with them.

So he breaks into the law firm of the lawyer who is representing one of the gang members as a client. He figures that the leader of the gang payed the lawyer, since the gang member does not have the type of budget, to pay such a high priced lawyer. If he breaks in and looks at the file of the case, he can find out who payed the lawyer, and thus find out who the leader is likely, or at least a higher up in the gang, that he could use to re-pick up the trail, after it's gone cold, since the client who was in court before, is the only known suspect in the gang.

So the MC breaks into the law firm, with a key card. The gang finds out that he has broken in though and go there to stop him from finding out more about the gang in that file. I haven't figured out how the gang finds this out yet, but they will somehow.

So they go there to stop him and probably attempt to kill him from finding out too much. They wait in the parking structure of the building, waiting for him to come out. Unknown to the gang, another rogue cop happens to be tailing the one member who is known to police, for other reasons, that are not official assignment and he has not told the police that he is following the one gang member, who is now with the rest of the gang.

So the police do not know who this cop is following and why. The rest of the gang members are unknown and have not been printed in the system before.

The gang members are all wearing gloves, and only the one's DNA is on file. So as the cop is tailing them, he hears gunshots since the gang has the MC pinned down, and the MC is trapped and cannot leave, but he has his own gun as well, to return fire.

The other cop tailing them runs in to stop the gang, since someone is pinned down and goes to assist, but is killed in the crossfire. The gang gets away, and the MC does as well, not wanting the police to know he broke into the law firm, which lead to the events that got the other cop killed, he has to now figure out what to do.

However, let's say the gang leader comes to the lawyer at the same law firm again, who represents him, and tells him that his gang killed the cop who's body is in the parking structure of the building. And the reason why they killed the cop, is because they were trying to kill a different rogue cop, who broke into the building to find out too much about the gang.

The police investigating the homicide of the cop have no idea what that cop was doing there, so they are going to be looking at the law firm for any help, since the cop was killed right outside of their building, during a break in, although I am not sure if any signs of a break in would be present.

Now if the gang leader goes to the lawyer and tells him that he killed the cop in their parking structure cause the cop was trying to stop them from killing the other cop, who broke in to find out too much, would the firm be legally obligated to defend him and not betray his trust? Or would the firm be legally obligated to tell the police the information that the gang leader now told them?

Where is the line drawn between betraying a client's trust, and illegally withholding information from the police? Would a law firm still defend a client after he killed a cop at their own building?


----------



## Reichelina (May 15, 2016)

Hello! I'm not a lawyer but I had five law subjects back in college.
So, I guess I'll throw my two cents in.

I'm not familiar with regards to your country's laws. So, I suggest you search Google for the civil code or criminal code and then decide on that. 

Being public professionals, we are not allowed to disclose anything to the goverment without the knowledge of the client unless we are demanded by the govt to do so. There's a term for that "demand". I forgot. Also, a firm, to protect it's reputation has the right to refuse a client service (not sure in your country though).

In your scenario, though, it is complicated since a crime is involved. 

This is one of the reasons I didn't want to be a lawyer anymore. There are holes in the laws and sometimes you have to make a moral decision. 

I'm sorry if I wasn't of help.


----------



## Jack of all trades (May 15, 2016)

Lawyers are people. Some are good, kind, compassionate and ethical, while are dishonest, conniving and immoral, and there's all types in between those two extremes. So it's not a matter of what A lawyer would do. It's a matter of what YOUR lawyer would do. And the only one who knows is you.


----------



## ironpony (May 15, 2016)

Okay thanks.  Wouldn't the whole firm's reputation be at steak though, so instead of one lawyer making the decision, is it up to the firm as a whole?


----------



## InstituteMan (May 15, 2016)

Aside from being pretty convoluted, this doesn't ring true as to how law firms work. Unless this story is set in the past, there's very little chance that the billing records will be on paper--they'll be a computer file. Also, criminal defense is usually work done by smaller firms or solo attorneys. Big firms will do some white collar criminal defense work, but won't be defending many accused murderers. The office of a firm that does the kind of work you describe is likely to have a reception desk, a secretary's desk, and maybe three lawyer offices, so it's not going to be a long and drawn out search through the premises.



ironpony said:


> However, let's say the gang leader comes to the lawyer at the same law firm again, who represents him, and tells him that his gang killed the cop who's body is in the parking structure of the building. And the reason why they killed the cop, is because they were trying to kill a different rogue cop, who broke into the building to find out too much about the gang.



No competent attorney is going to let a client get to the point of admitting complicity to a murder in such a meeting. If your premise is that the lawyer is totally corrupt and in the pocket of the gang, maybe it would work, but this wouldn't happen for a regular attorney talking to a client.




ironpony said:


> Now if the gang leader goes to the lawyer and tells him that he killed the cop in their parking structure cause the cop was trying to stop them from killing the other cop, who broke in to find out too much, would the firm be legally obligated to defend him and not betray his trust? Or would the firm be legally obligated to tell the police the information that the gang leader now told them?
> 
> Where is the line drawn between betraying a client's trust, and illegally withholding information from the police? Would a law firm still defend a client after he killed a cop at their own building?



I can't see why the firm would be obligated to represent the defendant, unless they had already entered an appearance on behalf of the defendant in the case. Breaking attorney-client privilege wouldn't be allowed, however.


----------



## ironpony (May 16, 2016)

Oh okay, I was told by a lawyer I asked that the files are kept in paper files in a file cabinet, at least at his firm they are.

The firm had already defendant the client before in the same case that is in the file.  The killing on the premises of the law firm building, was done to tie up loose ends in the case.  So would the lawyer still defend him on the behalf of the firm, since the firm represented the same client before in the case, which lead to the new murder?

Also if lawyers keep their cases on computer hard drives, then what do they do to carry the files around from office to office, or building to building?  Do they just carry a laptop, wherever they go now, instead of paper files?


----------



## Sleepwriter (May 16, 2016)

They wouldn't carry around billing records, only papers relevant to the case.  

As for the lawyer continuing to represent the client, that would be up to the lawyer.  He might feel he could become a loose end and it's a good idea to get out now.


----------



## InstituteMan (May 16, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay, I was told by a lawyer I asked that the files are kept in paper files in a file cabinet, at least at his firm they are.
> 
> The firm had already defendant the client before in the same case that is in the file.  The killing on the premises of the law firm building, was done to tie up loose ends in the case.  So would the lawyer still defend him on the behalf of the firm, since the firm represented the same client before in the case, which lead to the new murder?
> 
> Also if lawyers keep their cases on computer hard drives, then what do they do to carry the files around from office to office, or building to building?  Do they just carry a laptop, wherever they go now, instead of paper files?



Defending a client once doesn't oblige a lawyer to defend that client again. Once a lawyer starts defending a client on a new charge, he/she may have trouble withdrawing, but a lawyer has nearly unfettered discretion to decline representation.

If you haven't already done so, you should review the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the actual ethics rules for the jurisdiction you want to set this caper in. Alternatively (and this is what I would suggest), you can drop or de-emphasize this particular plot twist, since legal ethics are rarely a fun topic for fiction.

In terms of electronic records, how those should be kept and backed up is a big topic in the legal community. Currently, most small firms in the US likely use a cloud service of some kind, although there are some requirements around security for such services attorneys need to be mindful of. If a firm is using a physical drive of some kind, there are potential worries about maintaining appropriate backups. That said, many lawyers do a bad job with that sort of technological detail. Some do even still use paper files, but fewer and fewer do every year. Bear in mind that many (probably even most) courts now require everything to be filed electronically, so keeping paper files has become harder than keeping electronic files.


----------



## alanmt (May 16, 2016)

An attorney may disclose a client confidence to prevent a future crime that the attorney reasonably believes his or her client is likely to commit. There is no ethical breach in doing so. It is worth noting, of course, that some criminal defendants lie as much to their own attorneys as to the law enforcement officers who interrogated them.

Billing records may be kept in paper and digital form, or just in digital form. Many firms use billing software designed specifically for law firms.


----------



## InstituteMan (May 16, 2016)

alanmt said:


> An attorney may disclose a client confidence to prevent a future crime that the attorney reasonably believes his or her client is likely to commit. There is no ethical breach in doing so.



This is true, and could be a fun plot twist. The catch is that this exception doesn't always apply to ALL crimes (depends upon the state), but preventing a future murder would be a plenty valid reason to breach the privilege. Reporting a past murder would not, however.


----------



## ironpony (May 16, 2016)

Okay thanks for the ideas everyone.

In my research the lawyer I talked to says that the billing information on clients is kept on paper in a specific file cabinet of the building, at least where she works.  So I could write it that way, but if the electronic way is much more common or plausible I could write it that way.  If a rogue cop, wanted to find out who paid a lawyer, and the record was kept electronically, how would the cop get it?


----------



## alanmt (May 16, 2016)

It will vary, based upon the firm's record keeping and file set-up. Here's one method:

Break into the office. Get on the billing administrator's computer. Check the billing or accounts receivable subfile in the client's file on the server or in the billing program. See if there is a scanned copy of the check/money order/wire transfer which shows who paid. Check the invoices to see who they are sent to for payment, because the billed party is usually on the top of the invoice. In a firm where everyone is networked, you could find the file from an attorney's computer, which is more likely to be left on at night and thus not require a password on start up to access.


----------



## afk4life (May 17, 2016)

You might want to, for sake of this question, read some (I've only read his early writing) John Grisham, especially 'the Firm'. I would say this would give you a lot of ideas. He is or at least was the master of exactly the sort of situations you're referring to, and a very good writer with a legal background.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 4, 2019)

Okay thanks, I saw The Firm movie but haven't read the book.  They describe the attorney-client privilege obligation in the movie.  For my scenarion, if a lawyer suspected that his client broke into the law firm got a cop killed, even if the lawyer chose not to represent the client, he still has to keep his mouth shut about it though, doesn't he since he is still bound by attorney-client privilege?  Or at least that is what they say in the movie the firm, that that privilege lives forever, and the lawyer cannot divulge anything even if the lawyer chooses not to represent for the second crime.


----------

