Protecting a Serial Killer - Law & Order

[@Twan457]

As a law student just learning the model rules of ethics, the attorney here is right he literally can’t say anything or he will be breaking attorney client privilege and get disbarred. MR 1.6 only gives three exceptions and he may disclose if its to protect reasonably certain death. But here the people are already dead so harm is not imminent kind of a tuff situation for a moral attorney.

[@AveryR-XC]

A moral attorney is an oxymoron.

[@LiaaaaaaaaAAAAAHH]

He chose to go to the location of the bodies. There was no reason to go, he didn’t need to know, he wanted to see them. He broke the law the minute he locked the door and didn’t report it.

[@raymondweston8997]

@@LiaaaaaaaaAAAAAHH Although he did choose to go to verify the bodies. He actually followed the letter of the law, by NOT reporting the bodies to law enforcement. A lawyer is legally bound to report an impending crime, or a crime in progress. But he can NOT break, Attorney Client privilege, regarding a crime that has already been committed. Law and Morals can NOT exist on the same plain. The rule of law, was never intended to work that way.

[@xientau9028]

Question: Won't he be disbarred for aiding and abetting a felony like this? If so, then I see no reason for him to keep his mouth shut anymore once they drag him to the stand, it's a "damned if he does, damned if he don't" situation, no?

[@WiGgYof09]

@@xientau9028 he is not thinking about just himself. He says so in the clip.

[@123haninhk]

I love that Jack still riding his motorcycle this season until he stopped and started using the subway after he got older.

[@ca8427]

Jack is so old and gross

[@123haninhk]

@@ca8427 why do you reply to this comment thread. Make your own comment.

[@justinpullin98]

JustinPullin and Lindsaycase MelissaOiler and MikeOiler DaniellePullin and LuisLuciano MistyBrown and ScottBrown MeganEllis and MikeEllis MichelleOiler and Kevinstory brandylnpursley and LatianaLuciano Ronniemarrero and KellyHammond TylerJohnson and Jeanettespirt

[@LawAndOrderFangirl38]

I love it too! And he looks really hot in the scene with the bike. Gorgeous man

[@StevenVanOver]

As legal ethics are tossed aside this is what you fan-boy on? So sad.

[@LadyB_20]

The guy that played Bruner was a really good actor. The way you hate the guy sitting down really proves that he's a great actor.

[@habs798693]

They used him a few times. He also played a DEA agent in the episode Borgia was murdered.

[@geebee3256]

He’s SOOOOO CREEPY!! (But I mean it in the kindest and most loving way) It’s AWESOME. Really scary....Terrifying and convincing. I could watch this series 24/7. Be safe & healthy y’all.

[@madunwagbo4769]

He was also responsible for getting Green shot in the L&O/TBJ crossover

[@habs798693]

@@madunwagbo4769 I remember him being shot in L&O, but I didn't know about the TBJ crossover. I'll have to check that out.

[@madunwagbo4769]

The conclusion of Green’s shooting took place in TBJ with McCoy being taken off the case

[@alexforce9]

Well the attorney is right. He is following the rules. They want him to literaly break the law and to lose his license for that. Its veeeeery easy to preach about justice and right and wrong when you dont risk losing your job for it.

[@craigclermond8001]

not just his job is at stake. the integrity of the entire justice system. criminals could now claim they won't get a fair trial and people would be afraid lawyers could leak secrets on their lives at any point no matter how small.

[@denisenoe7746]

But he should lose his license instead of going to prison.

[@shapillay6321]

Maybe it shows how wrong and messed up the law is...it protects criminals...not the innocent ...any person who Says otherwise is also guilty

[@ALgamer47]

So this defense attorney is just going to spend the rest of life in jail?

[@katemae1076]

That's why McCoy's move to charge him as an accomplice is so good. It's ALSO to the letter of the law

[@tystin_gaming]

"I think the people would overlook your legal indiscretions if you told them what they wanted to know" This is very reminiscent of saying something along the lines of "If a man were not afraid of the truth he would answer" Your constitutional rights, the oaths you have taken (which are backed by law) are all there to protect you. Just because you use them does NOT infer guilt. Yet lately we seem to believe that.

[@ruben1151]

Issue is that he'd still be disbarred. What he should have asked for is for them to contact the bar and ask them to allow him to break privilege. If they did, he can say w/e he wants

[@jonsouth1545]

@@ruben1151 That wouldn't make good drama thought

[@craigclermond8001]

@@ruben1151 even if the bar allowed it, his reputation would still be stained. that's politics. who do you think will hire a laser known to break privilege and release information on his client. i might admire the guy but I definitely wouldn't hire him because anyone who does something once will likely do it again.

[@ruben1151]

@@craigclermond8001 I'd still hire the guy unless I'm accused of a similarly bad crime. I just don't view attorney client privilege as being thaaat sacred. In a case like this, it would 100% not affect my view of the guy. Granted some might feel as you do, but likely the guy would still have work. Heck, possibly more due to the fame/infamy

[@craigclermond8001]

@@ruben1151 in the real work reputation matters. the issue isn't with the guy doing the morally right thing. the issue would be how safe would people feel disclosing secrets to a lawyer who has previously exposed his clients. you don't have to be a vicious criminal to understand that. most trials are delicate and any information can be used against you, even trivial things. ill bet people would admire the guy from a moral standpoint but professionally he would be a liability to companies and personal cases.

[@Champcelticsnumber9]

Jack McCoy is actually violating the Rules of Ethics and could be sanctioned / disciplined further. Not only is it a violation to break confidentiality, but it is a violation to attempt to get another attorney to do so.

[@obliviouz]

Absolutely. Defence attorney goes in front of a judge and it's a straight contempt charge for McCoy.

[@codingfinance6080]

No one cares and it shows that you don’t know how the law actually works 😂😂😂

[@mrroboshadow]

@@FashionWeekYay yes but this is a hollywood court that actual lawyers praise for being very accurate

[@davisthegamelord]

Ive noticed a pattern with any law and order show. They like to demonize defense attorneys and make them look as bad as the criminals

[@matthewforsyth284]

Uh no he wouldn’t schwimmer knew where the bodies were because he saw the bodies you do know that right!?

[@tl3139]

I have always had a problem with this episode. Jack says "the cannons of ethics requires me to........." in almost every episode. But then, in this case it's "But who's it going to hurt?" But, this is drama not fact based. I just like consistent story lines.

[@nothobbesmufc949]

well, the defense attorney has no ethics to stand on. Defense attorneys aren't allowed to go look at hidden dead bodies, then close and lock the door behind him. That's aiding in the crime.

[@AH-te5gs]

McCoy was always one to bend the rules when he felt justice needed to be done. Even if it went against every rule of the justice system.

[@royalewithcheese7]

The lawyer should have just made an anonymous call to the police. That way the system stays in place, the code of ethics is still upheld, the lawyer can still practice the law. If the lawyer had placed an anonymous tip to the police then the only one that gets hurt is the confessed psychopathic killer.

[@Marsproject11]

@@nothobbesmufc949 Technically corret, the BEST kind of correct.

[@Bergen98]

If that serial killer just told him - sure. It is disgusting and that lawyer will probably commit suicide in the end of shear guilt. However, in this particular case, he went there, opened and closed the house were the bodies were. So he committed a crime himself

[@JaeymesDM]

Episode is based on a case that villified the defense attorney for doing something similar, but in the end he was vindicated and his decision has been held up as the correct course of action.

[@1slow.bimmer673]

is there a pt2 of this

[@johndavis9432]

Just because it's legally right doesn't make it ethically right.

[@Slowpoke3x]

​@@johndavis9432legally right is ethically right, your thinking morally right. Ethier way criminals and or those accused by the crime have a right to be able to trust their lawyers. Without that trust the justice system becomes a sham.

[@johndavis9432]

@@Slowpoke3x Murderers already have too many rights and their attorneys are scum too.They're just one little step above their monster clients.

[@royalewithcheese7]

I will say what I always say. In these hyper specific circumstances, the defense lawyer should always just make an anonymous call to the police. The should just say “Hey, I saw some shady activity at this property and some blood. You should check it out.”

[@b0ajvk8]

He is actually in a no-win situation. If he acquiesced to McKoy then the parents would be satisfied but his reputation would suffer so that no one else would trust him as someone to confide in if they needed to hire him. Then McKoy would not go out of his way to repair his reputation.

[@rudygb17]

Not to mention that if he does disclose the information, it leaves a precedent for future cases so so it would be easier for innocent people be prosecuted. McCoy knows this, but it pisses me off that he thinks he can ignore the law when it's inconvenient for him.

[@RohenBlackwolf]

Could he tell it, if a hight court would allow it?

[@b0ajvk8]

@@RohenBlackwolf the high court does not forbid it, nor do they have the power to compel it. It is up to the lawyer if he wants to violate the oath that he took when he became a lawyer, 'to guard privileged conversation. Ironically, Serena and McCoy would have had to take the exact same oath!!!!

[@matthewforsyth284]

Uh yeah and if he didn’t he’d still go to jail and be disbarred you know that right?

[@jxswu3224]

His own curiosity killed him, it's legit curiosity kills the cat, he wanted to see if the murders were true, by seeing them he must disclose that as it is potential and is evidence

[@WilliamHWJ]

I have to side with the lawyer on this! He is correct when he says that "we all lose". If he did break his oath and told what he knows about the bodies, then that would set a standard by which law would be done. Future cases would point back to this case and say 'see it was done before' or cause a slippery slope for 'lesser' cases. Even if a defendent might be innocent. His motives and reasons are actually noble and correct in up holding the law.

[@foolslayer9416]

You have got to be kidding me. You're defending a man who's defending a psychopath and a serial killer? I say that a man like that should burn down with the man with he's defending.

[@joshuajones9035]

​@@foolslayer9416 a defensive lawyer's job is to defend their client even if they hate them or don't believe in what they have done, the entire legal process relies on having the accused be able to defend themselves, less we be rampant with crime, if the defended aren't allowed to defend themselves in this manner a "fair" trial would never be possible

[@2degucitas]

@@foolslayer9416 The courts would be full of "unfair trial" lawsuits by perps found guilty on their lawyer providing confidential evidence. They would find another eager fresh out of law school, ACLU lawyer and clog up the courts.

[@ayacachotinemi4974]

@@foolslayer9416 Defence lawyers don't just defend guilty people. Prosecutors don't only prosecute guilty people. This is a TV series, fiction, written from the point of view of the prosecutor's office. In real life prosecutors are fallible and defence lawyers are often the only thing that stands between an innocent person and a system - cops, prosecutors, sometimes even judges - intent on railroading them. Give the prosecutor the power to strongarm an attorney like this and they always have it - they have it when they're prosecuting a guilty person and they have it when they're prosecuting an innocent person. Thank God the American justice system was created by people smarter than you.

[@donovansteltzner9080]

@Fool Slayer Even asking another lawyer to violate the canons of ethics - in open court and on the record - is itself a serious offense for which sanctions from the Bar would not be an inappropriate remedy. Even if the Lawyer does nothing and stands his ground, McCoy could be subject to discipline by the Bar.

[@pamelajordan2890]

Being a defense attorney has to be one of the hardest job. Yet where would we be without them.

[@Catsss1017]

Idk don’t commit crime

[@lPlanetarizado]

@@Catsss1017 sometimes innocent people gets the incarcerated you know

[@bursegsardaukar]

​@@lPlanetarizadoDepends how good or dedicated your lawyer is. One man was accused of murder and his lawyer had every opportunity to call a mistrial (a witness was caught sleeping with the investigating officer) but didn't. The man was later exonerated by DNA evidence after decades behind bars. In the Duke lacrosse case, one of the lawyers spent days reading a textbook about DNA and was able to discredit the private DNA lab director.

[@Chronically_JBoo]

​@@lPlanetarizadotoo many while actual killers are lose every day

[@ESPHMacD]

I really hate to do it, but I kinda agree with the poor attorney. Him disclosing that information could set a very potentially dangerous precedent for future cases. It might unfortunately cause more problems than it brings comfort.

[@tiralana8360]

Would you say the same of a priest who knew, without question, the identity of a child killer due to confession but remained silent due to "ethics". There are professional ethics and then there's the greater good. I rare cases those things conflict and, at least for me, I have to side with the greater good of helping those families. I'd take that hit professionally. Some things are more important.

[@JohnJohnson-ps3pd]

@@tiralana8360 These types of things are complicated, the greater good can cause misfortune for a lawyer and even their loved ones, always look at every factor of a situation

[@foolslayer9416]

@@tiralana8360 To hell with those ethics. If I knew where the bodies of that psychopath's victims were, I would scream it from the rooftops.

[@normande1176]

@@foolslayer9416 Ya me too that was a pathetic excuse to not say where are the bodies.

[@foolslayer9416]

@@normande1176 The guy is a psychopath and a serial killer, if anything he should be thrown into the crowd and let them all take turns torturing him until he talks.

[@danamoore1788]

"Attorney client privilege is there for a reason. If I broke that privilege to get my client off because I knew an alibi he had? You would disbar me so fast I would BOUNCE on the pavement. You know what happens if I break that privilege? The people don't say a damned thing. I am disbarred and share a cell at Rikers. And the entirety of client privilege goes out the window. I would love to tell you Mr. McCoy. I would love to not be this man's attorney and to have never seen what I have seen. But those will be MY nightmares to come."

[@Plank_Hill]

They really wrote Ledger's Joker five years ahead of the Nolan film. Impressive.

[@devonjohnson3549]

We have to take it under advisement he's not really wearing makeup he's a serial killer using a cab as a front

[@MikeMJPMUNCH]

Funny I thought he was more like Victor Zsasz

[@diosoth]

Ledger Joker is overrated trash though. He'd be scarier without the "I'm not even the comic book version" runny makeup but the entire Nolan Batman series was garbage anyway.

[@JnEricsonx]

And I'm pretty sure that's the guy who played one of the gang leaders IN said film, the Russian one, the "It's about sending a message" guy.

[@TactileTherapy]

@@JnEricsonx yup. The Chechen

[@mathisfun13]

They cut this clip off five seconds too early. As I recall, the guy on trial responds to Jack's last statement with, "Shame on them."

[@timokross]

Best line of the entire episode.

[@DoomMomDot]

this happened up here. a defense lawyer knew of the existence and location of video tapes that would have shown the girlfriend of a serial killer as a willing partner, and without them she got a light sentence and went free

[@TweetieDEE15]

Ken and Barbie killers?

[@gingerlee8819]

@@TweetieDEE15 They were ugly people, it's a joke they were nick named that.

[@richardharrow1946]

U from Canada

[@gingerlee8819]

@@richardharrow1946 yeah I am from Canada, those were people were not hot, even by Montreal standards.

[@KhaosN7]

This also hapened in the US. A killer confessed to his attorneys that he killed two other people and told them where to find the bodies. After they confirmed that the bodies were there, they didn't report them to the authorities and they were indcted after the trial. The charge was that they had violated public health laws by not reporting decomposing bodies, and they argued that reporting them would have violated attorney/client confidentiality. They were found Not Guilty.

[@crimps321]

I really don't like how dismissive the prosecutors are towards public defenders in this show.

[@4EyedRocker]

Ya, its the only thing that aged like sour milk in law and order and SVU. When I first watched this episode I was more angry at McCoy than at the Murder and the defense lawyer.

[@WillGrimm623]

McCoy had the moral obligation towards the victims. He’s more than willing to break ethics to do the right yhing

[@umungus518]

​@@WillGrimm623thats how innocent people get locked up. Ethics are there for a reason. He is a scary, authoritarian prosecutor.

[@marksmith3947]

One of the pluses of criminal intent is the lack of courtroom action

[@wanfu5634]

This brings up a lot of interesting real-life questions. I'd like Legal Eagle to do an analysis of this episode.

[@TactileTherapy]

He's currently obsessed with Trump. He wont be doing anymore Law and Order takes

[@ellejagerman6105]

@@TactileTherapy unfortunate but true

[@tonts5329]

Maybe Viva Frei or Robert Barnes could analyse it. They seem to know American and Canadian Law much better than Legal Eagle.

[@vincentbrooks4518]

Considering Legal Eagle is lying trash who has little idea what he's talking about, I doubt he'd offer much.

[@juliantapia1407]

@@TactileTherapy Out of the last 10 episodes he posted only 4 were about trump. That's not really Obsessed.

[@NuncNuncNuncNunc]

1) How did this ever make it to a jury? 2) Would the defense still have an obligation to his client after the client's death? 3) Presumably the bodies "under lock and key" are on someone else's property. Can the defense lawyer skirt confidentiality by asking the owner to check his property, or in some other way cause a third party to discover the bodies?

[@deedledumb790]

Knowing how sick Bruner is, it's likely a property he owns, somewhere very remote. Or rents and has paid the rent for years in advance. I can't imagine he would put them someplace where the smell would make discovery imminent or the owner could be forced to go in.

[@carmelopappalardo8477]

See I wonder if he can tell because he's being charged as an accessory. I know he is right as an attorney not to disclose but as an accessory can he disclose the location.

[@kyleolson9636]

It wouldn't have made it to trial. The real life inspiration for this case had all charges dismissed.

[@johnbeatz380]

Are there any other scenes of Jack on his motorcycle?

[@britney901]

I saw that and was like "He rides a motorcycle?"

[@123haninhk]

He rides a motorcycle since his introduction in the series. Usually his scenes depict him parking the bike before going to his office.

[@aaronburgin1442]

They refer to it periodically from his first episode in 1994.

[@cultclassic999]

There are many scenes where he changes into a leather jacket and carries a helmet when he leaves his office. It was clear he rides a motorcycle. But I don't remember seeing him with a motorcycle on any other scenes.

[@madunwagbo4769]

Ritchie Coster was absolutely mesmerising in this episode

[@shioriryukaze]

Dude...this is fuqed up...I feel sorry for the defense attorney in this. He had no choice but to defend this refuse...

[@MasterManto]

He didn't need to go to where the bodies were. His own twisted reasons of why he wanted to see where they were and what they looked like was his own doing... Sure, I've seen multiple comments about how he was ethically and legally bound to protect Bruner, but I wasn't sad one bit that he was locked up in the end.

[@denisenoemyschizotypaldiso3755]

@@MasterManto I was because it seemed like he was doing what he believed he was obligated to do as a lawyer.

[@MasterManto]

@@denisenoemyschizotypaldiso3755 I don't think there's any rule or law that says a lawyer has to go where his client tells him of crimes he's committed. He went out of a sick curiosity.

[@t.dickerson605]

@@MasterManto He wanted to confirm what the client told him.

[@ThePrincessCH]

@@MasterManto Apparently, he thought it would help his case or part of his job is to confirm the veracity of his claim. Although I wonder why the guy bothered to tell his lawyer about the bodies at all, I believe defense attorneys are required to meet with their clients regularly to review the case, if that's true why reveal to your lawyer a piece of evidence like that and use attorney-client privilege to keep it a secret if he's already found guilty.

[@GrandMa-hm5mb]

This happened in the Adirondacks around 1975. Robert Garrow murdered four teens. He took his attorneys to the bodies but they refused to release the location of the bodies to police. Their families suffered terribly.

[@Renegade2786]

This episode is probably based on that case. Law and Order is notorious for having episodes based real life cases.

[@wb5mgr]

I would blame the attorney for that all the way. It would be easy to make sure those bodies were found AFTER the trial was over so the family could have some closure. Just have suggest to an acquaintance to take a hike up there with his dogs for the weekend… bodies found. If your client was found not guilty then no skin off his back. Not his bodies.

[@CH-pv2rz]

The Defense Attorney should of told McCoy in private when no record existed that he knew. Then he would have never been tied to it. The cops would have created a reason to enter the premises of whatever or wherever the building is where the bodies were located. That is how its really done when something as bad as this occurs.

[@odinfromcentr2]

What the *hell*, Jack? I love the way Jack McCoy is written, but here... How the hell was he not disbarred for demanding this defense counsel break the law in open court?

[@matthewforsyth284]

Because he didn’t demand he break the law since on account this wasn’t covered by attorney client privilege you do know that right!?

[@devonjohnson3549]

Oh how I wish you held my cab that line right there it's just gold

[@karazor-el6085]

"hailed But yeah...he's thinking missed opportunities...

[@whywelovefilm7079]

Did McCoy really just say “so who’s it going to hurt?” That’s something one of those parents would say. Not an attorney who took an oath to uphold the same standards the poor defense attorney he had arrested is trying to do. Such horrible writing…

[@devonjohnson3549]

Brunner pick them up in a cab I mean there's no worst place you could dump the bodies this episode is so ominous

[@yesterdayitrained]

It’s clear the defense attorney is afraid of his client, and horrified about the choices he made. I do get his argument, and it has a lot of merit. We need attorney-client privilege. But I feel like this is a unique case. McCoy makes a good point- who is it going to hurt? The serial killer is already dead. Revealing where the bodies are located would allow families some closure and peace. As far as the defense attorney, in these circumstances, I think he should break privilege, provide the information, and then go find another career. The killer is enjoying the situation way too much. He knew what he was doing- he set up his attorney. And now he’s watching all of this play out- he’s now in jail so he can’t kill anyone else- this is the most torture he can inflict. He’s still pulling all the strings and enjoying the show. He believes his attorney won’t violate privilege. The serial killer is still inflicting trauma on all of those around him - it matters not if he is in jail or sentenced to death. He will still find ways to play his games and make other people dance for him. Truly evil. (and great actor!) And it’s worth mentioning he said he doesn’t care what happens to him- and I believe him. They will never get anywhere with him, and he knows it. That just leaves his attorney.

[@feanedhell]

Maccoy is completely in the wrong and should be disbarred for suggesting an attorney breaks the law. The attorney has no choice, if they make an exception for this case where do they draw the line? No defendant could ever be able to trust his attorney again, and that would break the entire system. Everyone is equal under the law, even the most horrific of criminals.

[@biruss]

it's the principle

[@yesterdayitrained]

@@feanedhell : He is not completely wrong nor should he be disbarred for his request. I do see the possibility of a domino affect- and the massive amount of damage that could cause. However, because the attorney opened a locked door and then relocked it- he is a witness to and complicit in the crimes. Just from my perspective- those two things- attorney client privilege and being a witness to a crime- are completely separate.

[@yesterdayitrained]

@@biruss : I get it’s the principle. But the attorney- when he unlocked those doors- became a witness to a crime.

[@feanedhell]

@@yesterdayitrained knowledge of past crime is covered in the privilege, it’s only in cases of current or future crime that he can break it. By opening and relocking the door he only obtained information about a past crime and did not increase or decrease the likelihood of evidence being found. It’s 100% sure, but it’s close that a court would uphold the privilege. If Maccoy had the law on his side he’d say it, he knows he doesn’t and that’s why he failed his office.

[@michaelkelly8956]

Props to the actor playing the serial killer for portraying a twisted psychopath so well, this guy should be the next Joker!!

[@alexgee6393]

He's already part of the batman universe. He plays the role of "The Chechen" in the dark knight.

[@marksmith3947]

Hell he could play Jack Reacher

[@timothyhannon4078]

McCoy rides a motorcycle?!? This guys gets cooler with every video.

[@Regal1999]

He rode a lot more in earlier seasons

[@kekoasilva9557]

Gotta say the guy that plays the criminal, He's a talented actor

[@digbybaines7813]

The lawyer's greatest mistake would have been asking for a jury trial. The accused has the option of a jury trial, or trial by judge alone. Of course a jury of laypersons would convict him The judge, who understands the significance of maintaining privilege... likely not. But you almost never see a judge alone trial on Law & Order - not dramatic enough for TV I suppose.

[@goldenvulture6818]

You mean a "bench trial"

[@goldenvulture6818]

Believe it or not a bench trial is no less risky than a jury trial

[@bull705]

But by that logic a sympathetic judge could have set aside the verdict.

[@scottmatheson3346]

a jury trial improves your odds - of a mistrial, thanks to some screwup with the jury present, of a successful appeal, of a hung jury - all you need is one of 12, one wildcard that slips through voir dire, 8% rather than 100%.

[@TheSqueeQueen]

I am not a lawyer but if anyone is, I have a question. Therapists have ethics to confidentiality as well. As a therapist I can not tell anyone what my client said,nor can I confirm nor deny they were my client at all. BUT if my client confesses to a murder or tells me they are planning to kill themselves or others, I have a obligation to warn. I can not contact the potential victim but I have a duty to contact the police. So is there such a thing for lawyers?

[@hannahyoung6762]

nope. your client can tell you all the details & the locations of the bodies or money & you can't do anything about it

[@RohenBlackwolf]

You can and must only act, if the client tells you of a crime that is going to be committed in the futur. Then for the protection of others and to not be an accomplice yourself you can report it

[@lateishaclements]

As an attorney we have an obligation to uphold attorney-client privilege. If he reveals and breaks that obligation the actor is correct WE ALL LOSE!!! Not to mention the client has the right to turn around and sue his attorney for the breach. Unfortunately, criminals have rights too that may continue to hurt others that have already been hurt :-(

[@sonrouge]

If he confesses to a past murder, no, you can't tell anyone any details. If he's referring to a future crime and you have reason to believe he's serious, yes, you have to report it.

[@DSQueenie]

The key word is “planning”. So yes in your situation a lawyer would also have to report on their client. However the situation in the show is about a crime that has already happened and in that situation they can’t talk.

[@KingDeuces22]

This is one of those rare scenes where people see through the bias of this show and acknowledge how it tries to normalize cops and lawyers breaking the law when it benefits the state. Almost every episode, at least one lawyer and cop openly violates or purposefully misconstrues a law to strongarm a witness or defendant. This show has done untold damage to the public’s view on the relationship between the justice system and citizens.

[@crazyangst12]

This was a unique episode. A fight between the realism and the idealism of the law.

[@foolslayer9416]

Laws are based on convenience, not virtue. He is protecting the rights of a serial killer, a serial killer who has subverted the laws and needs to pay.

[@crazyangst12]

@@foolslayer9416 that's his job as a defendant.... and he is paying for his crime

[@winternow2242]

You mean the lawyer's choices are based only idealism?

[@pythontron8710]

This case would be thrown out immediately. Not to mention that the ACLU would throw every resource they have at protecting this attorney.

[@toxictaro]

Question, if the defense blabbed about the bodies wouldn't the serial killer get to appeal fruit of the poisonous tree as the information was obtained illegally?

[@gregjenkinson7512]

In this case no. The killer has already been arrested and charged They just want to know where the bodies are so they can give the families peace

[@KhaosN7]

No. But the laywer would be in serious trouble. He could be sued and would likely be disbarred.

[@t-rexcellentreviews1663]

@@KhaosN7it doesn’t matter, he got disbarred anyway after he was imprisoned, instead of just losing his job, he lost his job and his freedom.

[@bursegsardaukar]

​@@t-rexcellentreviews1663For the sake of his own ego.

[@asbrozek64]

One of the more fucked up and corrupt things Jack ever did. I'm surprised the judge would even allow this.

[@AnnaJo2000]

This a a fantastic episode! Not only was the actor who played Bruner was top notch, the episode really gets you talking. Who was right? Who was wrong? What was the right thing to do? Does the law prevent you from doing whats right? There are no easy answers from this episode and no one wins. This episode is a great conversation starter, thats for sure.

[@goldenvulture6818]

Jack often abused his power & violated the rules/ethics of his profession. He considered those acts to be honorable as well as just.

[@asbrozek64]

Jack's ethics were whatever suited him in the moment.

[@fumzsimmer1992]

Which is why Stone was the better DA in my opinion

[@goldenvulture6818]

@@fumzsimmer1992 He was an ADA

[@mohammedhussain6749]

@@asbrozek64 so a lawyers ethics then

[@sypherthe297th2]

That's a foundational aspect of being a cop/prosecutor and a large proportion of the judiciary has been corrupted by former prosecutors. The law is simply whatever benefits their careers, pocketbooks, and ambitions. For every guilty criminal they put away they protect a similar number in their own organizations. Its unfortunate but the system is rotten to its core with people like Jack McCoy. Defense attorneys are supposed to be zealous advocates for their client. Prosecutors are supposed to pursue justice and not simply press for the highest number of years against innocent citizens just so they can notch a win. But they do.

[@hiddenfromhistory100]

Strange how they always make serial killers look crazy and creepy. Actually they are usually very logical and intelligent people, like sociopaths. And when they work for a government or a church or an army, and have money, they get away with it.

[@89five3five]

The BS in this episode. No judge would’ve allowed this to go to trial.

[@tnsampson2]

This killer deserved an Academy Award for this performance. Perfectly frightening.

[@terrynasonisasupervillain9017]

I love Law and order

[@garden_goth7140]

the actor playing bruner is absolutely incredible

[@Unknown-bq9id]

Google the Robert Garrow, Sr. case; the episode Bodies was loosely based on this (and in that RL case, the lawyers were CLEARED of all wrongdoing--it occurred in New York state)...

[@zb3495]

“Come on, violate the law : who is it gonna hurt?” Is the moral rot at L & O’s core.

[@MsWarriordiva]

It's the moral rot by trump & his attorneys & any judge trying to protect him.......and that's REAL LIFE!!!!

[@ALgamer47]

0:01 his suit and eye 👀

[@PointyTailofSatan]

Simple solution. Have the NY Bar allow him to talk. Or ask the Supreme Court. In this episode, it seems the Bar and court system are simply turning their backs on the issue.

[@balajay8921]

In fact the NY Bar should be defending him. And the Court should intervene. Surely, it could order the release of the information without any risk of repercussions? Now I remember, it's episodes like this that made stop watching the series all those years ago. Too much fiction parading as facts...

[@craigclermond8001]

@@balajay8921 that will still destroy the profession. even if the motives are good you have to understand reputation plays a big role in these professions. what do you think will happen if people find out lawyers can just break privilege and hand over info on their client. would you for example be comfortable with tax layers that just hand your banking information over to the IRS anytime they want, even if you don't think you've done anything wrong. it's a very slippery slope and there would be ripple effects.

[@juliantapia1407]

@@craigclermond8001 The reputation of publicly allowing an attorney to reveal the location of a criminals dead victims after he's already been sentenced to death, vs the damaging reputation of people outraged at the law, the city, and those in power for not making a concession. The thing about laws are that they need to be bendable of they're to be adaptable. Otherwise you end up with laws that have gaping holes due to a society that does things the lawmakers had no idea were possible

[@tigera6]

@@craigclermond8001 First thing first, you need to acknowledge that the current law and justice system in the US is FLAWED, hell even the Constitution from over 200 years ago still being applied is a sign of trouble. People and the society need to grow and adapt into new and more logical solution, not just from the scientific standpoint, but also from the moral and ethical one.

[@craigclermond8001]

​@@juliantapia1407 it's very hard to bend the rules just once. hence my point about the reputation of the profession. how do you tell citizens to follow the law/rules if the justice system is allowed to bend them? if you join the legal system you have to abide by the codes of conduct. every profession has them. similarly, as a doctor, you don't choose who to save based on if you think they are good or bad people. laws can be changed, however, that affects the credibility of the profession. who is going to disclose private information to a lawyer they know can make it public anytime. if you don't think reputation matters then you are not realistic. politics is a perfect example of that. people judge and vote based on your history, merits, and credibility, not on good intentions. lawyers are no different.

[@r.n.holmes5625]

I forgotten these older episodes. McCoy was still riding that bike of this. That's cool.

[@applejaxx8950]

This is painful to watch. Yes, the attorney be hurt. Even if not disbarred, his reputation is at risk. Who would want to be represented by him. Lawyers may have a bad rep but everyone has the right to an attorney and I am sure that things like this happen today. That sick people tell their attorney and even show their attorney, horrible things. To expect an attorney to literally ruin his life like this is completely unreasonable! One of the few times I have been against the "good guys" of Law & Order.

[@iamjp1]

the prosecution is wrong here

[@alexisgrunden1556]

It wouldn't be in any way ethical, but dropping a hint to the genpop of his crimes, but mandating that _he's absolutely _*_not allowed to die..._* That would loosen his tongue pretty quick.

[@markmed9091]

That series was so well written . They had a great eye for casting too .

[@Awwscrewit]

L&O always goes out of its way to vilify defense attorneys.

[@denisenoe1534]

This episode is off-the-wall.Attorney-client privilege is pretty rock solid and the lawyer here is technically in the right. It is bizarre that he should be imprisoned for being true to the lawyer's ethics.

[@ZOOTSUITBEATNICK1]

@@DevourerofGods666 twit

[@nothobbesmufc949]

he's being imprisoned for helping hide the bodies. it would likely get overturned on appeal. it's a bit of a legal quagmire. However, locking the door behind him does technically constitute aiding in the crime.

[@RLucas3000]

@@nothobbesmufc949that was a dumb thing to do. Did he win or lose his case?

[@t-rexcellentreviews1663]

@@RLucas3000he lost and along with going to prison, he was permanently disbarred because of conduct, his first case was also his last, he should have just told them where the bodies where and accepted he wasn’t cut out to be an attorney, his career was over before it ever really even began.

[@winternow2242]

​@@nothobbesmufc949haven't caught this episode in a while. What evidence did they have that he did any of those things?

[@awddfg]

"YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY" bruh he is an attorney lmao

[@chrisadams2183]

The greatest show of all time! Period

[@erikdraven1731]

They convicted the attorney. As one of the final lines went; "We put the system on trial and the system lost." They could've done a good follow-up with a future defendant refusing to assist in his own defense because he was afraid McCoy would put his lawyer in jail.

[@beardeddragon1706]

Never saw this episode. I'm with the defense attorney on this one.

[@normanbraslow7902]

As an attorney I'd take this to the State Bar for an ethics opinion.

[@craigclermond8001]

you'd probably never work again, as a lawyer at least. who is going to hire a lawyer that leaks client info? even a DA's office wouldn't trust you. most firms would stay clear of you and any client who hires you and googles your name would drop you like a hot potato.

[@normanbraslow7902]

craig clermond I don't quite understand your point. There is no violation of attorney client here. If you think so, explain.

[@craigclermond8001]

@@normanbraslow7902 I just did. even if the bar allows it no one would trust an attorney who discloses privileged info. would you hire a lawyer you heard testifying or leaking secrets on his last client?

[@normanbraslow7902]

craig clermond A lawyer must testify if they are witnesses to a crime committed by the client. On occasion, the attorney client privilege will not apply as to information regarding future crimes. It's not cut and dried. Civil matters are another matter entirely.

[@craigclermond8001]

@@normanbraslow7902 its complex therefore it can be manipulated and misuse. that's why we have general guidelines of each profession to follow.

[@brendyturo]

Every time I see this episode, it really annoys me that McCoy and Southerlyn weren't recused in this case. I mean, I get it, they're the only ADA's in the show, it has to be them. It bothers me way more than it should lmao

[@daniellefelice7368]

I wonder if he ever ended up telling where the bodies are in any future episode

[@t.dickerson605]

Well, it WAS only a story -- fiction that was written for entertainment.

[@sonrouge]

He did not. And I believe he actually successfully appealed his guilty verdict from this trial.

[@daniellefelice7368]

@@t.dickerson605 I know it’s only a story but sometimes (on SVU) they will bring back storylines from season ago with new evidence, suspects and such. It’s just nice to see a story come around and to completion

[@biruss]

@@sonrouge good

[@DSQueenie]

He’s only in this episode. It’s implied at the end that the prosecutors will release him (as he will never tell them what they want to know) and that he’ll win a future appeal against his conviction.

[@eldridgedavis]

Great episode

[@blank_stare_productions]

That suspect was channeling his inner Spacey back when he was in seven.

[@alexeistrife56]

Why is the Judge allowing this line of conversation, lol. Jack is literally arguing in favor of him breaking the law.

[@Barrythebarnabas]

3:45 he is DESPERATE to feel important and in control 🤣

[@GirlycarDawn]

There might be an easy solution to this. If the lawyer went back and opened the lock again then people could probably find them from the smell. Then he wouldn't have to tell anybody or break his oath. Or alternatively he would present his credit card usage to the public. By doing so they could see how much gas he had and thus how far he traveled and which direction he went in.

[@winternow2242]

Privilege doesn't work that way, limiting only verbal communications. Any communication or actions with the same result would have the same consequences.

[@Conservativelawyer]

Poor guy was just doing his job.

[@franklesser5655]

The defendant seems like a nice gentleman.

[@bull705]

Watch the whole episode sometime. The nice guy is a shill trying to climb the legal ladder on the back of a serial killer. He got what he deserved

[@ryanlee6538]

@@bull705 he said defendant... Durrhhh

[@Iamkcs2c]

I would think the state bar has a commitee that can address issues like this so it is not McCoy and this guy with dueling interpretations - I know CPA's do.

[@cma1676]

Does anyone know how the episode end?

[@gsrj]

Yeah I remember the lawyer doesn't reveal what he knows and ends up being found guilty and sent to prison I always hated how that episode ends because I agree with the lawyer he shouldn't have to break confidentiality

[@nobesuthundlovu5393]

So the bodies were never found?

[@biruss]

@@gsrj he win an apoeal

[@bull705]

@@biruss There was no appeal.

[@DSQueenie]

@@bull705 you’re right but it’s implied by Serena that he will win a future appeal.

[@kentallard8852]

@7:38 the people might but the bar association wouldn't

[@denisenoe7746]

This prosecution is not legally legitimate.

[@TheOriginalsadistyx]

He would be disbarred. The whole case is an example of public pressure forcing a court case that will not have a winner.

[@theloremaestro5498]

One of those episodes in which I would have preferred Jack to losing instead of winning.

[@NuncNuncNuncNunc]

On rewatching this, I wonder if McCoy did not make a promise at the very end and whether that promise is ethical or legal. He stated that the people could overlook an ethics violation. He is "the people" and seems to be suggesting the current charges would be dropped and perhaps any others. He, however, has no power with respect to bar sanctions or even disbarrment, but seem to suggest that that would not be an issue. Also seems like the kind of case Adam Schiff would have said to either let go or find another way.

[@chinigirlX3]

Ohhh it’s the husband Soul of Frankie and Grace! Wow he didn’t change in the last decades :o

[@TactileTherapy]

Before Bruner was a Checheyan mobster in Gotham City, he was a psychopath. Makes sense.

[@Unknown-bq9id]

I don't like that he's keeping it a secret where the bodies are buried, but I do admire his principled stance, and he is right on this...

[@juliantapia1407]

He's right lawfully, but as stated elsewhere, he could've found multiple ways to divulge the info without implicating himself and avoided this mess.

[@craigclermond8001]

@@juliantapia1407 you are looking at it solely from a civilian standpoint but remember you have to also consider it from a professional side. not only would he never work again as a lawyer, but he would also undermine the justice system for a fair trial.

[@EnlightenedByKnowledge]

Shwimmer's sense of duty to Brunner goes way beyond the point of reason here. Bruner gleefully sold Schwimmer out to the prosecution, and Schwimmer still feels protecting his client's secret is worth going to prison over, even though they point out to him that keeping quiet at this point has literally no benefit for himself or Brunner. And once Schwimmer is sent to prison, he's automatically disbarred, which means he's no longer Brunner's lawyer, which means there's no more attorney-client privilege, which means that he no longer has an incentive to keep the location of the bodies a secret. Shwimmer wants to uphold attorney-client privilege and the legal system as a whole? Fine. He was subject to due process, given a trial, found guilty by a jury of his peers, and sentenced accordingly. And he's not a hero for being an accessory after the fact and keeping the location a secret. My headcanon says that he eventually reveals the location while he's in prison, if not also after Brunner is executed, but I seriously doubt it.

[@sonrouge]

Gotta give kudos to the actors playing the serial killer and his lawyer. You really want to hate both of them.

[@Ub3rSk1llz]

I don't hate the defence lawyer at all, I admire him. I hate the prosecutor.

[@antmagor]

I only hate one of them. Here’s a big hint it’s not the lawyer.

[@antmagor]

@@Ub3rSk1llz agreed, and as I said elsewhere McCoy has encountered corporate attorneys who’ve done at least what this guy did. I don’t seem to recall him prosecuting them as a means of circumventing the attorney client privilege. Because this guy is a public defender, they went after him with the big guns. There’s a part of me that wishes Ms.Sullivan had represented The defense attorney at trial. And if not her may be a former law and order alum. Not so that the verdict would’ve changed, This was clearly meant to be one of their thought-provoking episodes; but just to throw the poor guy a bone.

[@davidholmgren8156]

I have to feel sympathetic for the defense attorney, it’s clear that he wants to help but isn’t allowed to

[@eaqua56]

Loved Alexander Chaplin in Spin City. Cool to see him in other roles.

[@artman2oo3]

This was definitely a conundrum.

[@voltair42]

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Star Trek: The Next Generation Jean luc Picard

[@MattAlbie]

I think even Jean Luc would understand the case to be made for a radical exception. This is not the witch hunt that episode is from after all.

[@davidanthony4845]

Ritchie Coster is a fabulous and unfairly neglected actor.

[@azarelxx3]

I understand both sides of the argument cuz it doesn't matter what you tell your attorney they can't disclose anything he could only say anything if his client permits him to and the people have a right to know what happened to the bodies but you can't charge him to force him to break privilege he should quit as an attorney then tell them since he technically wouldn't be an attorney and wouldn't be held by privilege

[@bzh7648]

I think an individual can still be disbarred and sued for their past employment. He could quit and decide to renew his career at a later date, if he weren’t disbarred. I think the attorney’s best bet would have been to unlock the storage area and find some way for it to be discovered.

[@julianlawrence-ball2279]

Nothing worse than a gloating killer who won’t give the victims parents peace. We had a guy called Ian Brady,, he and his girlfriend murdered a number of children and never gave up the location of the bodies. At the time the U.K. gov had just abolished the death penalty. Understandably the people wanted them hung anyway. But actually justice was better served listening to the pair of them bitching and whining about wanting to be let out for 40 years.The psychological torment they went through until their deaths was frankly wonderful to see. When you execute someone their pain ends too soon

[@calvinallen3424]

The serial killer's acting is really annoying.

[@Jai137]

Good annoying or bad annoying

[@mysinusesrkillingme3975]

Kevin Spacey in 7 vibes

[@fromthehaven94]

Annoying can imply that an actor is doing too well.

[@madunwagbo4769]

I thought Ritchie Coster was excellent as Bruner

[@Amberelyse]

@@mysinusesrkillingme3975 I got that vibe too!

[@ilovecheese162]

Is it common for a serial killer to be put up for parole after 25 years because to me that sounds really light considering how the USA usually practices "LAW"

[@dylanram4653]

i mean the attorney is kind of right here, there gonna put him in prison because he put his oath over everything, he shouldnt be in prison becuase of his values hel learn his lesson and move on withourt making the same mistake hopefully

[@TheSongwritingCat]

This is the problem with ethics in the abstract and the pretense of objectivity. The systems are abused by the powerful and corrupt sometimes actively uphold that corruption and power imbalance. The rules serve to keep good people in line. You can say the defense attorney has to keep his client's secrets for the greater good but the system is already broken in so many ways, it's just a game of moral relativism if you don't have absolute faith in the criminal justice system (which you shouldn't).

[@mrfivegold]

Jack McCoy would be utterly blacklisted from any attorney cooperation if he prosecution this in real life. Lawyers don't like you jailing other lawyers.

[@alexanderelderhorst2107]

I mean, to be fair he's completely in the right. If you start making exceptions to a definite rule of the job, you start to make those exceptions more often, and suddenly nothing you say to your attorney will ever be confidential. If I'm not mistaken, the rule is the only time you can ever disclose what is said is when the lack of that information is putting a persons life at risk (like maybe there's a bomb set to go off in a weeks time), similar to when you talk to a therapist. Those children are already dead, so nobodies lives are at risk, and he has an obligation to keep his clients private conversation confidential. This is also why people who reveal government secrets of their illegal activities get arrested and charged. While yes, it is revealing a crime (which never gets prosecuted because the government runs the justice system anyway) at the same time they are under obligation to keep these secrets while working in the field that allows them to have access to those files. It's a tough pill to swallow but when you have a legal obligation, no matter how hard it is or how morally wrong it is to follow it, as long as nobody will be in direct danger of harm or death because of you following them, you have to do it. After all, the justice systems in America or anywhere else need those strict guidelines to keep people safe from corruption, and any exceptions, as I said, will lead to a further blur of the line to make it seem like you haven't crossed it yet. And people wonder why lawyers can be straight up a-holes, they have to break down their moral compass that much.

[@rickyricardo4331]

And the next year that defense attorney was at Sacred Heart hospital scheming drugs off of Ellot Reid.

[@yarib6479]

He was also in Criminal Intent, another good episode.

[@HD-jb9ju]

"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?" - A Man of All Seasons

[@wb1644]

This does not make sense at all, why did a judge allow this in court, the prosecutor is wrong here.

[@Deborahtunes]

It's evil like this is why those nearly endless appeals should not be allowed...

[@cma1676]

Yes, but the issue is for the innocent ones who need the chance of many appeals, is it not?

[@Deborahtunes]

@@cma1676 ~ With today's DNA, and it's continuing advances, they are not needed as much as they once were...

[@Deborahtunes]

@@cma1676 ~ The main problem now is crooked prosecutors and defense attorney's who are just trying to make a name for themselves, by ignoring the evidence. But in cases like this one, where there is no question of guilt, there should be no appeals...

[@cma1676]

@@Deborahtunes I think, but may be wrong as I do not live in the US, that many cases are not trialed and the people not well informed of their rights, and that a huge amount of DNA evidence is never tested or entered in the system.

[@Deborahtunes]

@@cma1676 ~ Well here it's different. Criminals have more rights than their victims do. It's not right...

[@paouri5231]

What episode is this