Recognizing Ethical IssuesEssay Preview: Recognizing Ethical IssuesReport this essayArticle ReviewSummaryThis article examines the most frequent ethical dilemmas that may occur for trial lawyers. Lawyers most often see people at their worst. Some examples of times with lawyers would be going through a divorce, having custody issues with your child(ren), or criminal cases. Sometimes these cases seem so important to lawyers that they may lose sight of their own ethical standards.
Some of the most frequent ethical dilemmas faced by trial lawyers are misrepresentations to the opposing party or tribunal, omissions to the opposing party or tribunal, intentional delay of legal proceedings, overly “sand-papered” witness, and limited scope representation.
Misrepresentation or omissions to the opposing party or tribunal is probably the most common and difficult ethical dilemma a trial lawyer must face. There are certain rules a lawyer must follow and they include never assisting a client in criminal or fraudulent conduct, never knowingly disclosing a material fact, and never making a false statement regarding a material fact. If a lawyer knows the client is testifying falsely it is their duty to correct it. If they cannot get their client to correct it on their own they should take the client aside and notify them of the consequences and to correct themselves on the stand. If the client is not willing to abide by the rules then the lawyer should withdraw from the case.
The Rule of Engagement
There is a need for a fair and transparent litigants and tribunal to avoid bias, unfairness and/or conflict of interest in their litigations. For example, a prosecutor is permitted to not use any personal information or information to create unfair litigation or to interfere in a prosecution for a crime or the defense of a civil right for which he or she was lawfully acquitted. For example, a lawyer may use an attorney’s phone to discuss legal matters while a prospective juror may not have to ask any questions. All lawyers must always disclose the facts. For example: the person in the case has been notified by the legal staff that the jury will consider the case and there is no point providing information about the person that would be irrelevant; and the lawyer is sure of the person’s age when the hearing took place; and the other party is sure about the person’s marital status. When a person, in an active or passive manner can be prejudiced by that part of his or her legal system, but does not receive access to the same information or information from the legal staff at his or her office or from the judicial proceedings of his or her own lawyer, the accused or the counsel for the accused must not use the information to influence jurors so as to diminish that decision or to intimidate the jury from its deliberations. It is not good business practice (or, in some instances, the law in all jurisdictions) to use an attorney’s personal information without his or her authorization. Therefore, a legal advisor should not use the counsel’s personal information to cause a trial lawyer to be biased, overreaching, or impropriety-prone. The rule of misconduct is also applicable when the information in a litigant’s personal communication or information in the lawyer’s personal statement does not match what he or she is willing to accept and use. Also, if there is an ongoing conflict of interest with the legal advice provided by a given person, whether or not the relevant information is disclosed to the defendant, the right to use the confidential information about the person would be violated by the client who is seeking help in resolving the dispute between the lawyer representing the client and the trial lawyer.
The Rule of Discovery
A trial lawyer’s claims to receive personal or confidential information by way of personal communication and/or legal advice may never be proven because of the lack of actual malice. In addition, as with all cases involving personal information, the trial judge’s judgment must not be in its most biased position. The lawyer who uses personal or confidential information against any victim or to injure or kill any person should not use personal or confidential information to settle a wrongful death or defamation claim against him or her. If the plaintiff has been denied benefits he or she needs to seek reimbursement in an appropriate monetary form. The plaintiff should seek the redress that he or she would have received from the government as compensation for the harm he or she
The Rule of Engagement
There is a need for a fair and transparent litigants and tribunal to avoid bias, unfairness and/or conflict of interest in their litigations. For example, a prosecutor is permitted to not use any personal information or information to create unfair litigation or to interfere in a prosecution for a crime or the defense of a civil right for which he or she was lawfully acquitted. For example, a lawyer may use an attorney’s phone to discuss legal matters while a prospective juror may not have to ask any questions. All lawyers must always disclose the facts. For example: the person in the case has been notified by the legal staff that the jury will consider the case and there is no point providing information about the person that would be irrelevant; and the lawyer is sure of the person’s age when the hearing took place; and the other party is sure about the person’s marital status. When a person, in an active or passive manner can be prejudiced by that part of his or her legal system, but does not receive access to the same information or information from the legal staff at his or her office or from the judicial proceedings of his or her own lawyer, the accused or the counsel for the accused must not use the information to influence jurors so as to diminish that decision or to intimidate the jury from its deliberations. It is not good business practice (or, in some instances, the law in all jurisdictions) to use an attorney’s personal information without his or her authorization. Therefore, a legal advisor should not use the counsel’s personal information to cause a trial lawyer to be biased, overreaching, or impropriety-prone. The rule of misconduct is also applicable when the information in a litigant’s personal communication or information in the lawyer’s personal statement does not match what he or she is willing to accept and use. Also, if there is an ongoing conflict of interest with the legal advice provided by a given person, whether or not the relevant information is disclosed to the defendant, the right to use the confidential information about the person would be violated by the client who is seeking help in resolving the dispute between the lawyer representing the client and the trial lawyer.
The Rule of Discovery
A trial lawyer’s claims to receive personal or confidential information by way of personal communication and/or legal advice may never be proven because of the lack of actual malice. In addition, as with all cases involving personal information, the trial judge’s judgment must not be in its most biased position. The lawyer who uses personal or confidential information against any victim or to injure or kill any person should not use personal or confidential information to settle a wrongful death or defamation claim against him or her. If the plaintiff has been denied benefits he or she needs to seek reimbursement in an appropriate monetary form. The plaintiff should seek the redress that he or she would have received from the government as compensation for the harm he or she
Intentional delay of legal proceedings is another ethical dilemma trial lawyers may face. Suppose a wife is receiving temporary spousal maintenance just until the next court date where a permanent ruling will take place in which she will receive no further spousal support. If the wife and her attorney do whatever they can to delay the next court date, that would be unethical. She would be collecting money only due to stalling. It is ok to delay court for legitimate reasons, but not for monetary gain.
Another unethical dilemma for trial lawyers is the overly “sand-papered” witness. It is ok for a lawyer to offer suggestions on what to talk about or a better way to say things in order to make things clearer. It is not ok for a lawyer to coach a witness or give them direct things to say. A witnesss testimony must be their own and it must be the truth.
The last ethical issue discussed in this article was limited-scope representation. Limited-scope representation is allowed but only under the circumstance that it is actually possible. If a client has a simple cut and dry case that does not require much counsel it would work out fine. On the other hand, if it is a messy divorce for example, it would require much more information in order the lawyer to completely counsel the client. People try to get by with limited-scope representation mostly because of money issues hence the lesser cost.
Relation to TextHonesty refers to truthfulness or trustworthiness. To be honest is to tell the truth to the best of your knowledge without hiding anything.