What if an Attorney Knows His Client is Lying? Ep. 6.626

What happens if an attorney ACTUALLY KNOWS their client is lying?
www.lehtoslaw.com

[@caramanico1]

I'm not a lawyer, but you have me completely hooked, Steve. Fascinating stuff!

[@thomasbrown9699]

I'm hooked too!

[@technoxtreme178]

If they gave me a dollar for every reasonable time the word reasonable appears in statutes and rules, I'm reasonably sure I'd be unreasonably rich.

[@Rhuidian]

It's a reasonable word to use.

[@danielhoward8354]

sounds reasonable

[@skippyi6969]

LMFAO

[@alpheusmadsen8485]

I bet each field has their favorite words to abuse. In mathematics, it's "normal" this and "normal" that, with it almost certainly guaranteed that something "normal" in one branch is *not* related to something "normal" in another. And "regular" is close behind ....

[@billh.1940]

Legal ethics, an oxymoron! Please find a reasonable man, I am reasonable, he's not!

[@lb1984]

I love how the thumbnail looks like you are giggling, as if to say "of course they're lying!"

[@thorinpalladino2826]

Apparently the reason that the first class is ethics is so that said ethics can be forgotten by graduation.

[@bobbobskin]

Utter rubbish!

[@thorinpalladino2826]

@@bobbobskin Yeah, that is why 90% of lawyers give the other 10% a bad name.

[@albertseabra9226]

A Lawyer may defend a person guilty of a Crime, going against existent Law. Neverthless, always within the bounderies of Ethics. For instances, in the (relatively) Old South, Law could state : "A Black person must seat in the rear of the bus". An easy, clear exemple to place on the table. And the person declined to move into the designated area, ignoring Police instructions. Being charged .with ignoring transportation Law and a Police Officer's orders, resisting arrest, etc. In sum, defending a person against unfair and unconstitutional Laws it's not easy -- and "ain't " cheap. In material and figurative terms.

[@Goatcha_M]

I think the question is more about if they say things on the stand you know to be false based on their confidential testimony but they didn't tell you ahead of time that they planned to lie.

[@AuntLALA]

I have a very specific situation i want to know about. P DIDDY attorney vehemently denies the allegations. There are multiple videos, court documents, multiple victims, and 2 raids that are investigating for trafficking. ALLEGEDLY. My concern is, his buffet of attorneys have to know he is guilty of many crimes. Hypothetically, let's say the attorneys are aware of his actions, can they STILL say all the allegation are for profit and not being a victim? Where does it cross the line for the lawyer?

[@elpuerco6059]

What are the punishments and how and who enforces them for breaking the rules?

[@russiandrivers9986]

Can a lawyer pay hush money to a porn star when their client is running for election?

[@itatane]

It's a good thing to have Ethics 101 as the first class in law school. Sometimes I wonder if it should be required to have a refresher course every so often... Edit: Especially for prosecuting attorneys.

[@benvarela4472]

Morseo for Family Court Attorneys

[@Gary2873]

Ethics 101 should probably be the first class in any degree

[@heroesandzeros7802]

Especially for judges.

[@thornmatthew8395]

How about defense attorneys?

[@rekietabeatslc9980]

Binger was sent Ethics books 🤣

[@pkobalt]

There's the story about the criminal defense attorney who when asked how many guilty people's he's defended says "Zero, I don't do appeals cases, all my clients are innocent until the end of the case."

[@samjordan8800]

Innocent, I doubt. Not guilty? Now *that* makes sense! There's a biiig difference!

[@billytaylor6604]

I doubt they would ever say Innocent, they would say Not Guilty

[@drpinky504]

There's an interesting interpretation of "innocent until proven guilty ". I never thought about how far that goes. I would say that at appeal the burden of proof shifts to the defense if found guilty at trial.

[@paulcollyer801]

@@samjordan8800, Scotland has a verdict of Not Proven, in so much as the jury think they’re guilty but not enough evidence

[@TimeSurfer206]

@@samjordan8800 Yes there is. And THAT is why you will NEVER see a verdict of "Innocent." The only two verdicts allowed from a Court are, "Guilty, " and "Not Guilty."

[@christophermcelligott1593]

Something I read once: "What most of us end up seeing and believing is that the lawyer's job consists of, not the provision of the best possible defense that the accused can get nor the pursuit of justice, but using as many technicalities and loopholes as possible to have the case so narrowly defined that it becomes nothing more than a big game between the prosecution and the defense, with the judge not as the impartial facilitator, but as the referee of a boxing match. When evidence is ruled inadmissible, when there are seemingly endless delays, when obviously guilty defendants go free, most of us can't perceive this as justice, but as legal maneuvering. And lawyers are at the forefront of launching appeals to overturn convictions and having precedents interpreted so narrowly or so broadly that they seem unrecognizable. We want a justice system, but what we have is a legal system; and lawyers are the agents who prevent it by making sure that Lady Justice 'can't see the forest for the trees.' "

[@aleksandrbmelnikov]

Legal does not mean just nor fair, only that something is of or pertains to law. Notice how they don't make illegal writing pads? Or as someone once told me, Ill-Eagle is a sick bird.

[@renektonftw]

🐊

[@creativecraving]

The basis for a lot of legal maneuvering in criminal cases is that no matter how bad the individual's crime, it's much worse if the government commits a crime in order to obtain evidence.

[@harveywallbanger3123]

"A big game between the prosecution and the defense" It's actually even worse. Not even a game, more like a play where the stars write the script up amongst themselves and take turns switching roles while the audience sits there mute. The system is so oversaturated with caseload that prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges are all aware that they are on the same team: the team of order, "the legal system". The game encourages them to screw each other, but they NEVER screw the system, because it's what pays their bills and justifies their existences. ALL of them. Put a Judge, a D.A. and a defense attorney in the same room for long enough and they'll all agree that the real enemy is not crime itself - it's anything that might drain the money and power out of their industry.

[@Linghunt2]

I like this type video, touching all types of info as you go thru it.

[@disarmingset66]

yea don't always agree with him but i always listen!!

[@gsmith207]

hes great.

[@wrecklass]

On a related note, we all know it is illegal to lie to investigators like the police or FBI. Yet for some reason those same people are allowed to lie to those they are investigating. Why is that? Steve, perhaps you could do a show on why members of law enforcement are allowed to do what the people they are interrogating are not. I can provide examples if you need.

[@pattypetty9615]

Well the fact is all you hafto say is I'm not answering that! Lawyer, Lawyer, Lawyer! You do not hafto answer anything in an interrogation or even in court! In court you can take the 5th!

[@1.21JJWatts]

"A very long answer to what appears to be a simple question." Welcome to law.

[@sweetandsouahpork2170]

Surely this doesn't include family law where the attorneys are usually dirty and suggest that the woman lie about her spouse's behavior and domestic abuse for a more favorable result.

[@terrycrowell4303]

The truth be told, A poor man is charged with the exact same crime as a rich man,Who [ALWAYS] wins?????????

[@davidchristensen1219]

Steve, have you ever done a video on "due process" and the requirements of the government to fulfill that obligation.

[@StefanHillier]

Answer: They charge their client more. Remember they're called criminal attorneys.

[@insanitysportal6692]

Ha Ha!! :-D

[@seneca983]

Civil attorneys on the other hand know how to behave cordially even when they're downright seething.

[@gorillaau]

Defence attorneys will grab their firearm before leaving the office.

[@UncleKennysPlace]

That's the problem; the first class is ethics, so it's the first forgotten! (I worked for a literal criminal of a lawyer; he was permanently disbarred, died at a young age.)

[@lilacdoe7945]

"When the going gets tough, you don't want a criminal lawyer. You want a 'criminal' lawyer." -Jesse Pinkman

[@marcosaceacevedo]

Each attorney has to take an ethics test before they take the Bar… So they have to keep on top of that… Dirtbags are gunna be dirtbags regardless of profession. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@SubPablum]

Manson fired his lawyer everyday until he got one that objected to every half of every sentence the prosecutor said. He liked him. Best trial ever.

[@jimbergen5232]

It must be horrible to be a defense attorney ( public defender ).

[@kurtdanielson993]

I have always thought that a lawyer was there to help a wrongly accused person defend themselves against charges that are not valid, and not to persuade a jury that a guilty person is not guilty. It is in everyone's interest to have people who commit a crime are somehow punished for it and also, to uncover prosecutors and police who may fabricate evidence to convict someone they don't like (why they do this I don't understand, but it does happen).

[@rafgomez333]

Great video, Steve!!! I've been an attorney for many many years, but it's always good to refresh these too familiar concepts. Thanks much,

[@ssureshot]

Then - - - There is Saul Goodman...

[@jblyon2]

So far Saul has disliked this video from 10 different accounts

[@BrianWanda]

Good question with one lawyer in the room, great question with 100 lawyers in the room. Also: missed opportunity for a guest politician lawyer to join the episode.

[@daniell4501]

Steve, if you haven't seen "the Lincoln Lawyer" then you need to see it. It is similar to what you're talking about in this episode.

[@karlnieberlein6606]

He should explain that movie to us

[@danieldudzik6470]

You have demonstrated why law school takes so long to complete. There are very few short answers to the law and you must be trained to examine every action from every aspect. Like a Chess master , you consider every move and counter move.

[@thebrinx9632]

7:26 Heh, heh-heh heh, heeh. Trio of chuckles...I love it! Love your videos Mr. Lehto, If you had a twenty-minute video on how a clothes pin worked....I'd watch it! (and I'd click the "like" button).

[@wolu9456]

LIE YOUR BUTT OFF TO YOUR OWN LAWYER. a lawyer should get his client off not throw in this ethics crap the prosecutor doesn't care why should you?

[@davejohnson7432]

I had an attorney, public defender, when I was younger, that is a very prominent attorney today in our community. She was assigned my case, and through our interview, she came up with a story that I could use that would put doubt in the jurors minds. I was 14 at the time. It was a criminal case. She must have missed that ethics course, or thought I was hot. But it helped, and I was found not guilty.

[@donfronterhouse4759]

That sounds more like the tactics of a prosecutor. They develop "a theory of the case" and then elicit testimony from 'witnesses" to sell it. It's more about imagination than fact. That's not to say that defendants are necessarily innocent,but they are, more often than not, over charged. And yes that term is a thing.

[@SakuraShirakawa]

You spoke at length about Perjury. My issue would be, what if you are a court appointed attorney and the client tells you outright I committed the murders, I planned them out meticulously and am fully aware of what I have done and feel no remorse or guilt. How do you proceed to represent them ethically since your job is to keep them from or at least reduce jail time. The law states that EVERY person accused has the right to be represented. How do you proceed forward? Do you simply advise the to go for a Mental Instability defense? (Obviously someone who commits heinous acts deliberately with no emotional response to them MUST have issues).

[@dr.jeffreyharris3765]

A former student of mine became a lawyer up in Canada. I asked him if as a lawyer he could suggest various wild theories as to how a crime occurred in an attempt to muddy the waters surrounding his client. He told me that he is not allowed to lead evidence that he knows is not true. Yet I am sure we have all seen many real lawyers on TV (real lawyers not TV shows) doing this. Is there some fine line that they are skirting or are they just outright breaking the rules? Thanks

[@justabigbaby]

Excellent examples. Above and beyond. That was fun. For some odd reason reminds me of your mechanic story tasked with rotating the elders pristine caddies tires. When a block or two down the wheel came off and passed them down the street. The mechanic said that he had done the rotation, but didn't see any order to tighten the lugs.

[@thisiscompletelyreta]

Listening to this just makes me laugh after hearing from a couple different people that they had lawyers in family court tell the wives to lie and say that the husband sexually abused the children so they could win custody

[@logansmall5148]

That's suborning perjury and is a crime.

[@orppranator5230]

That’s family court, a den of scum and villainy, which is an exaggerated representation of the rest of the legal system.

[@johnwescott1500]

Yes, ethics are important. The only way is ethics. (One for the Brits)

[@simonrook5743]

Yeth.......

[@tyroberts2261]

Apparently legal ethics don’t stop lawyers from lying. Or anything else. ; ).

[@jmanko]

A good movie based on this topic is "The Devil's Advocate". When Keanu Reeves knew his client was guilty and still went ahead and defended him, it set off a whole string of events where he was going to be the father of the anti-christ haha. But he got a second chance (most likely from God) and then decided to not represent the guy. Great movie. Al Pacino was a great Lucifer.

[@ipsedixit6015]

A lawyer can defend a guilty client .The prosecution has to make its case. I have heard that if a lawyer knows for sure a client is guilty, the lawyer is not allowed to say the client is innocent; however, the lawyer may argue that there is reasonable doubt. Another question. Is that true.

[@karenshroyer7417]

My late friend,was a criminal case lawyer and explained this to me.You had explained it somewhat better.Thanks Love your program.

[@TheAdymiller]

What happens if you know your client committed a crime, he admitted to it, and someone else has already been found guilty of that crime and is serving time in prison for it?

[@michaelsommers2356]

A more difficult question, I think, is what happens if the client lies on the stand, the lawyer has good reason to think that it is a lie, but the lawyer did not know in advance that the client was going to lie.

[@stephenfoster7110]

You mean like AH just did to her lawyers? 😂

[@KoJo-qh9od]

Having been involved in the criminal justice system in the past I can tell you some defense attorneys missed the ethics class.

[@kenrodmelrocity4241]

I dated a lawyer. I remember being with a group of her fellow lawyer friends one time as they were talking about other lawyers. One of the first characteristics they discussed about other lawyers was whether or not they were ethical.

[@husseinyousif5654]

Perjury is a serious crime, be honest, and ethical!

[@rogerp5816]

Steve, as always a great video. It seems you didn't touch on Rule: 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal and how this could or should impact a case where as an attorney you knows or it's come to their attention the testimony given was clearly false. Maybe the subject of a follow on video talking about the responsibility of the attorney to the Tribunal in the pursuit of justice. How does an attorney ethically handle the balance between presenting the best case for their client and not allowing the opposing party being hurt by known perjury of their client? It would seem at times if the attorneys client is allowed to get away with the perjury third parties not even involved in the case could be injured in the future. It seems based on rule 3.3 an attorney has an obligation to both the client and the Tribunal and I'm wondering which is stronger. I'm not an attorney however I think I understand they're are some differences between civil and criminal proceeding and how these rules apply. My comment relates to how rule 3.3(e) works. As I read the the second paragraph of the comments for rule 3.3 it seems the attorney has to tell on his or her client, which to me makes sense in order to maintain the integrity of the court.

[@stevelehto]

I actually did a section on that but the video was too long so I cut it. I'll do a separate video because it is another pet peeve of mine (attorneys who argue things they know to be untrue or incorrect).

[@ki5rllthreedronefour85]

Someone should link this to Giuliani to watch.

[@curtiswilson3597]

Enjoy this channel very much. My own situation isn't the accused lying, but the ethics of the attorney was in question. Texas Gulf coast. A family member had an altercation with a neighbor and was charged with Class A with bodily injury. We hired a defense attorney, paid his retainer. This went on for more than a few months and a few court appearances which were rescheduled by the prosecution. The attorney approached us with a plea bargain, which was no bargain. When it became clear that the DA wanted to go to trial, we found out that the plea bargain was what our attorney was proposing, not the DA. This included months of jail, apology letter, etc... in a case that we felt was a self defense case. At this time the DA ramped up the charge to Felony. At this point our attorney called us to his office removing himself from our case because he was appointed a judge in the city the altercation occurred and it would be a conflict of interest that he would be called to question police officers. We got another attorney, paid a new retainer and went to trial. They released the jury for deliberations, they also added the lesser charge of Class A. No felony, but we did get the Class A. This is the issue. I looked at the appointment of the first attorney and he was appointed long before he took our case and should have recused himself and not taken our case. I sued him in small claims court for the amount of the retainer and no surprise he won in that the Judge ruled we paid for the work he put into the case. Two things, he was pushing a jail time, and other things that in the end didn't have to do. We would not have seen jail even with the felony we're told as first time offender with no history. The second was the attorney new he could not go to trial and that is always a likelihood, so he took our case and retainer and wouldn't have been able to represent us properly. This all happened 10 years ago. We then had a civil case and we came out ok there to. We didn't take it any further, but felt the ethics of the lawyer was lacking. Take care

[@curtiswilson3597]

Both prosecutors were fired soon after for withholding evidence in another case.

[@sped6954]

The very first thing I thought of when I saw the title of this video is the very last point that you brought up just before closing it out, and that it isn't necessisarily a defense attorney's job to get an acquittal for their client, and that they don't have to believe their client either. A defense attorney's main job is to "defend" their client from any number of onslaughts likely to come their way, the most likely of which is themselves. "If you sit down, shut up, and do what I tell you to do, there's a pretty decent chance that I might just be able to get you out of here in 20 years, maybe 17 or 18 if you take a job and behave yourself while you're up." The next most likely threat is from the system to chew them up and shit out the other end. Again, it still isn't always about getting an acquittal, it's just to protect them from the system and assure that regardless of their obvious guilt, they still get a fair trial, and not just crammed through the system to the point that even showing up for court is just a formality.

[@alaskamike1559]

Have you ever not believed a client and then found out they were in fact not guilty?

[@geno55912]

Hi Steve, If you have a client that willfully and knowingly lies to you in representing them, can an attorney put in the retainer agreement that if the client lies, can the attorney assess that client a fee for their BS?

[@stevelehto]

I've seen retainers that explicitly state that the attorney can withdraw instantly if the client is dishonest.

[@johnallen6039]

It is why Robert Kardashian did not say a word at the trial of the century. He knew OJ was guilty and let the rest of the "dream team" speak.

[@ObscureStuff420]

And he didn't look happy when they found OJ not guilty

[@toolbaggers]

18 seasons (so far) of "Keeping Up With The Kardashians"

[@samjordan8800]

@Timeless Metal Classics Maybe he knew something about wifey Kris and daughter Kim that didn't make him happy.... But in all seriousness, wife Kris Kardashian was close enough friends with Nicole Brown (one of the murder victims) till she claims she was supposed to meet up with Nicole for dinner the night of the murder!

[@C.CurrySims]

Another question. What happens if a law enforcement officer gives you inaccurate information on the law. I.e. rules of the road type stuff.

[@blueridgebikeman]

Steve, have you ever represented a client in a criminal case in which the defendant was actually innocent? What was the outcome? We'd love to hear that story.

[@donstewart368]

Prosecutors make up scenarios and swear to them in court all the time.. Thats not lying?

[@108gk]

Most of the time the only person sworn in court to tell the truth is a witness.

[@wireman4029]

You have some good stories coupled with some adult humor, I enjoy listening to your channel

[@margaretstoner4701]

Hey hello there milk man...i love this gentleman's adrenaline...i 'd hire him in a heartbeat. ⚘

[@nickknickerbocker6415]

@@margaretstoner4701 ❣" NEED more people like him ❣{ check out Katie Porter on KZbin she knows how to ROADBLOCK EVASIVENESS!!} 🍎 (scroll down her videos )

[@rmkscrambler]

My very dishonest aunt once bragged about how her attorney could win any case by continually intentionally delaying it on every minor detail. To the point the prosecution and court would either give up or get so frustrated they would make mistakes causing the case to be thrown out. Is this really something an attorney can get away with?

[@ailynkara]

I hope we get a crazytown update soon

[@musashiaharon9808]

Awesome episode! I love the ethical discussion.

[@Pb-ij4ip]

That’s very interesting, and I have nothing to add. I’m only commenting because Viva Frei tells me commenting and liking “feeds the algorithm” (or as I prefer to call it, “the algae-rhythm”).

[@snyper1982]

Have you had any mic drop closing arguments or owned opposing council so hard it was effectively a mic drop? Had to happen in the court room.

[@toolbaggers]

What happens if an attorney ACTUALLY KNOWS their client is lying? - 18 seasons (so far) of "Keeping Up With The Kardashians" - Bruce Jenner converting to Caitlyn Jenner - Kanye West declaring slavery was a choice and running for president

[@kennethkristiansen6958]

But isn't this the honor system bc how would you prove the lawyer had knowledge of this if they do this in person have fun proving it. Unless the lawyer is a dummy and did it over text or email.

[@basicprogrammer6147]

My question is at the bottom. Here are the facts: 1. She filed for an OP first, then divorce. She sobbed in court, so the female judge ejected me for one year. 2. The male judge let the OP expire a year later, but kept me ejected during the pendency of the divorce proceeding. 3. During this whole time, she and her lawyer agreed that she would send my mail to me. 4. 3 months ago, I stopped receiving my mail from her and kept asking where it was. 5. I could not afford child support so I stopped paying the full amount. Her lawyer demanded I pay, but I said I was not getting my mail including payments to me and IRS mail (the IRS is now after me). 6. Finally, she sent my company payments to me and two IRS past due notices... ALL HAD BEEN OPENED AND KEPT FOR 3 MONTHS!!! 7. So, I told her lawyer. And I plan to file a motion for sanctions towards her for tampering with my mail and postal harassment, federal crimes. Question: Why doesn't her lawyer withdraw?

[@kyle1598hffgyfv]

In Ohio, a local lawyer was appointed to defend a guy for murder before the grand jury because no one else would take the case and he worked for the family on non criminal matters. Grand jury made it a capital case, he went to tribunal to withdraw as he lacked qualifications for capital cases. He got appointed as an independent consultant for the defense lawyers since the client refused to talk to the new defense team. Couldn't escape from the case.

[@marcosaceacevedo]

Excellent!! This vid perfectly fits into my Legal Ethics study material…Would be great to hear Steve do 1.7 for us tho..😅

[@Jackalbeez]

Is there a circumstance where a defense attorney is required by law, to disclose to the prosecution attorney, or law enforcement, evidence that they have discovered, which proves their client is guilty of a serious crime?

[@ecsciguy79]

You make a point that the first class you took was ethics. Unfortunately, in reality, I think the functional way to view this is 'For graduates/practicing lawyers, Ethics was so long ago I've forgotten it'

[@basicprogrammer6147]

16:03 Lehto: "I never had a case where I believed them (my client), then I stopped believing them." My problem is, her lawyer is SO acrimonious and bullheaded that he continues to represent her... even though I have hard evidence like police reports and texts that I provided OVER AND OVER showing that she blatantly lies. Why on earth is her lawyer not withdrawing? I think it's because he wants the money. But please enlighten me.

[@thornmatthew8395]

Journalists need about 3 classes of ethics per semester

[@wholeNwon]

Not unless you call Fox talking heads "journalists".

[@ipsedixit6015]

Late to the party. But in the 90's legal series The Practice, they had an episode where this came up, and the client testified in the narrative. Could that happen in real life?

[@opassem]

"Woah, you mean to tell me that perhaps I SHOULDN'T break the law in an attempt to prove that I HAVEN'T broken the law!?" 🤯🤔🤔🤔🤯 some people shouldn't be permitted to appear in public without a legal representative chaperoning them at all times. lmao.

[@jeffb5798]

Steve, what if you are representing a client who is accused of murder or rape, and mid-way through the trial they (privately, behind closed doors) tell you, "you know what? the victim had it coming... ok I admit it, I did it". (so at this point you don't just suspect your client is guilty, you know they are b/c they admitted it to you). They don't ask you to put them on the stand (and you weren't planning on putting them on the stand anyway), but what do you do? Do you still represent them, even though they admitted they are guilty to you?

[@acrvids]

We deal with the same thing in the Real Estate industry. Whether you’re an agent or a loan officer the first and last thing that we tell trainees is, "Do not break the law." Every now and then we'll get a client who offers to have their paystubs "edited" to help them qualify for the loan. Or they may tell us that they can get other documents forged. And we have to inform them that not only is this illegal, but at some point the validity of the information is going to be checked and verified.

[@TimeSurfer206]

"After consultation with his lawyer." What are these Funny Words you speak, Magic Man? Only time I ever saw my Public Pretender was IN COURT.

[@cumberson77]

Steve, Steve, Steve!!!!, just the opposite happened to me. I wondered how it could be legal. Ok, so a buddy’s lawyer wanted me to lie and say I was driving at the time of his dui. So 1, I wondered about the ethics of that. You answered it. And 2, if I said I was driving in a court of law, could I them be charged with the dui when they dropped the charges against him ????? If you can answer that sometime I’d appreciate it. To sum up, if someone admits a crime in court, even with no other supporting evidence, can they be charged with that crime ??? Thanks Steve

[@brettsadzewicz1760]

Here's another interesting question on that. Say your perjury hypothetical is the case and this particular lawyer sticks to certain morals: Lawyer requests to withdraw - Court/judge orders him not to/tells him no - Lawyer then refuses the courts order and withdraws anyways with a new explanation/statement of: I am retiring from practicing criminal defense law (I.E. Lawyer immediately decides they are done with those types of cases and will only do contract law etc... in the future).

[@jamesking1971]

If a client chose to break a bad law/ unconstitutional law, would you be prohibited from assisting the client in the commission? For instance if you were sitting next to Rosa Parks, could you give her advice as she broke the law or try and talk the cop out of arresting her?

[@billybadtoes]

I think that the movie called THE LINCOLN LAWYER..is one of the best movies around that covers the same problems what your post is about

[@puppydog12000]

I wonder how difficult it really seems to a liar? Probably not difficult enough I know most times I feel people are lying to me all the time but they are always bigger and stronger with huge hands so NO MORE PEOPLE FOR ME. Everyone Lies these days.

[@richardjafrate5124]

A friend of mine is a criminal defense attorney who has represented murders, drug trafficker's, etc. When people would ask him "How he can you get these really terrible people off?", he would say the following: 1. Just because someone broke the law doesn't make someone guilty, If someone breaks the law they are guilty until the police and state attorney do their jobs and a jury say so. 2. If you do something and the police and state attorney do their jobs, the jury is going to find you guilty and there's nothing I can do for you except ask the judge to give you a room with a view. He then said "That's why I do what I do and why it's important."

[@kentlbrown5810]

Enjoy the videos. My question regards politicians who are also lawyers. Does the rule against lawyers lying apply to the political area? Working in a House or Senate committee? How about investigations like a DOJ or FBI work for the House or Senate?

[@Mark-gg6iy]

My Brazilian lawyer, a retired Brazilian navy officer asked me why I did not just have my ex-wife killed instead of fighting her in family and criminal court. My 5-year-old son was within earshot.

[@frankhoffman3566]

I bet such clients underestimate the courtroom. There, a judge sits above you. An armed bailiff stands there openly. A dozen jurors stare at you intently. Smart attorneys, who likely expected you to try that, ready their prepared examination.. It ain't your living room. If you think you can commit perjury convincingly there, you're dreaming. Your guilty demeanor will make it worse.

[@robertapreston4200]

ok... I am only in 5:08min. Obviously, I HOPE there is more...otherwise, Oj, Casey, and these are just 2 off the top of my head. But, many more are out there where the evidence points directly to a person and Defense fights to the end to cause the "doubt" necessary to acquit this person or lessen their "intent".

[@darkarima]

To me, the much greater question: Why are prosecutors almost never held accountable for deliberately misleading the court (hiding, destroying, or even manufacturing evidence) to convict an innocent person? Theoretically it shouldn't happen... but what do we think will happen when there are high rewards for getting a lot of convictions - and only a minuscule risk of being punished, virtually none while still in power?

[@hantenfox3357]

Never lie to your attorney. EVER. It’s hard for them to defend you if you lie to them.

[@wholeNwon]

Don't force your attorney to make ethical decisions you don't want him to have to make.

[@wolu9456]

they sure wont try to get you off if you do tell the truth

[@thomasridley8675]

Does anyone know an LLC in Arizona that rents high end sports cars for special events in Sacramento ? They are going to be very unhappy when the car comes back. It was involved in a hit and run. Drivers side damage. Thought it would interest you. It not everyday when a 100, 000 dollar car runs for it.

[@CapnDrift]

It was my understanding an attorney couldn't disclose passed criminal activity (attorney/client privilege), however as an officer of the court would be bound to report a client for a planned crime. In your scenario the perjury would be planned. Now, say the client didn't tell the attorney he was going to lie, yet the attorney was fairly, somewhat certain that's what the client had in mind. That's a different can of worms. No one, but the client would know for certain a crime was being committed so therefore the attorney would have no responsibility other than the representation of said client, regardless of what he or she may THINK. I'm no mouth piece, but I'm quite certain it happens every day.

[@bradybyrum6885]

Well, the cops are immune from liability for lying under oath on the witness stand granted to them from the Supreme Court case of Briscoe v. LaHue, so there should be equality on both sides.

[@pwade8080]

Ethics for lawyers. Hilarious. I know one truly honest/ethical lawyer and he’s my cousin. The rest hide behind the idea of providing good representation. They will outright lie and stretch a point into non-sensical pretzels.

[@riinak7212]

If you question your client and later find out they perjured themselves by either they told you after the fact, or upon review of facts that you may be privileged to that the prosecution are not, or someone comes forward to you later that makes the defendants' testimony obviously perjury (instead of just putting up a smokescreen-type defence to try to be found not guilty), can you just request to withdraw via "Professional considerations require termination of representation", or can you just no longer use that information later on, for example, in closing arguments? If your client does and you find out later, would the false information they have given you be out of bounds in questioning other witnesses or in closing arguments? I hope I phrased that question clearly enough. I will refine it if it is interesting enough. ;)

[@776281]

There is a world of difference between being 99.99% certain your client is lying and having the client tell you he is lying. "My client advises" followed by some real BS, His client was a real looser, but the tribunal seemed more afraid of the lawyer than the lawyer was of the tribunal. If I could see through what was going on then any lawyer would have, but

[@guidichris]

So, if you make clear up front to a client that if he intends on lying, he should not tell you about it, does this alleviate the situation? (Providing the client follows this advice, of course). As I understand it, the attorney's job is to advocate for the client, not to determine the client's guilt or innocence. Honestly, if I were presented with this conundrum, I might consider changing my career. So incredibly tough, and such a fine line to walk. Maybe a sawzall could help.

[@shoominati23]

Its a BS statement of thought that most or all attorneys would immediately terminate the proceedings and bellow "How dare you tarnish my good reputation with your corrupt activities" upon learning of a clients guilt is comical in concept and execution '.. Maybe 300 years ago

[@davekramer4266]

If an Attorney withdraws or is dismissed by Client, is he/she still covered under Client/Attorney Privilege.. If not, can the Prosecutor then call the former Attorney, to testify against, that person?

[@curiosity2314]

All due respect none of this should have to do with Jury's, Time or money. The facts and nothing but the facts please with an outcome. Enough about Not enough time or money. The Time, Money and jury's argument is BS. People need to be tried in court fairly. If you don't have the time it's likely you will not have a fair trial. Make the time and the money to do it over if need be. Get it right or don't do it at all.

[@wholeNwon]

Decades ago I asked my TAX attorney the same hypothetical question. He answered it in about 1 min.! In essence, an attorney cannot participate in perpetrating a fraud upon the court. Then what if the client insisted on testifying falsely? If the attorney cannot withdraw, he cannot participate by asking questions of the client on the stand. I would think that he couldn't even properly call the client to the stand. But that's my own addition.

[@terryrazor5978]

Chatting with a public defender I enquired as to how he defended an obviously guilty defendant without suborning perjury. He answered that he never asked about guilt but would spell out the case against them and ask, "how are we going to defend against this".

[@oldmanfunky4909]

What lawyers are suppose to do and what they really do is two different things. John Gotti's Lawyer Bruce Cutler & Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen are a couple of prime examples oh lets not forget Gloria Alred the queen liar herself.

[@bobbobskin]

Steve, I have done immigration law. In many jurisdictions it is a criminal offence to *assist* someone, either knowingly or by negligence, to make an application based on false representations. However, equally, the rules which we operated on stated that we could not refuse to provide work done - if a client demanded it - whether they had paid us or not (I know, no lien, crazy). For us, this meant that we would (occasionally) run into regulatory complaints when the evidence showed that the person lived in one city, and they had claimed to us, for their application, that they lived somewhere (with someone else who they were basing their immigration on) which their bank statements (for example) clearly demonstrated they did not live at. (simply put, they would say they lived in the north of england and all their bank transactions, for 5 years, would show not a single transaction outside of london or on the motorway or long distance coach or train tickets). In these instances, we simply refused to supply, accepted a regulatory complaint for refusal to provide the file, and would argue with the regulator that we could not lawfully comply.