ABA's snitch rule shot down in flames

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

Screw the ABA. Communist front organization. These rules were an attempt to make your attorney a government snitch against you.

****

American Bar Association Reform Leaders Cancel Contentious Vote on Ethics Rule
By Anne Gearan Associated Press Writer
Published: Aug 7, 2001

CHICAGO (AP) - Facing likely defeat in the governing body of the American Bar Association, leaders of a divisive effort to overhaul legal ethics rules canceled a vote on the most contentious issue Tuesday.
The proposed change would have given lawyers much freer rein to report all manner of wrongdoing by their clients, including fraudulent business deals and financial crimes. Opponents said that is a dangerous violation of the rule of secrecy between lawyers and clients.

"It's unfortunate and it's a setback," said E. Norman Veasey, chief justice of the Delaware Supreme Court and a leader of the ABA committee that drafted the proposed rules. Veasey said he may try again at the ABA's next gathering in February.

Veasey's group withdrew the proposal after losing overwhelmingly on a related issue. The policy-making House of Delegates voted 255-151 not to change the rules for reporting fraud or crime in which the client enlists the lawyer's help.

"They saw that, and they thought they were likely to lose" on the larger question of whether lawyers should be able to squeal in cases in which the lawyer was not involved, said Robert Grey, a Richmond, Va., lawyer and an opponent of the rules change.

Tuesday's action means the ABA's recommendations stay the same: A lawyer should try to talk a client out of committing a crime and withdraw if the client refuses. Forty-one states have laws that go further in encouraging or requiring lawyers to report wrongdoing. . . .

Also Tuesday, the policy-making House of Delegates may vote to oppose attempts to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits claiming the companies sell unsafe products or create a public nuisance.

Cities and individuals should have the right to pursue negligence claims, and states or the federal government should not give gun makers special immunity, an ABA report accompanying the recommendation said.

Read more about these jerks, here (http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA83P354QC.html)

[Venus]

Conversely, the idea of the ABA running around policing lawyers to be policemen is amusing, and would certainly keep those busybodies busy because lawyers ain't gonna snitch off nobody unless it's a surefire benefit to them in the immediate future. But the notion of an ABA's ethics maintenance endeavor is delicious. images/icons/shocked.gif

But, this would be very bad for bidness. images/icons/grin.gif

Who wants to hire a snitch? How do you represent guilty defendants under this condition?

[ThomasMore]

If this had passed and become law, it would have fundamentally changed the character of the legal system in the United States. Instead of serving the public (badly), the legal system would quickly become a means of intimidation...and I don't mean by petty ambulance-chasers, but by the State.

1. The American legal system, as corrupted as it has become, still empowers its citizens. Our system relies on the parties to a legal case (be it civil or criminal) to provide the Court with the law and facts, which the judge and jury then decide. This is unlike other systems, wherein the Court itself appoints parties to investigate the facts and provide the information to the Court - the State runs the entire show. In our system, WE largely control the information which the Court uses to make its decision. (The prosecutor or your opponent give it some information, but you control much of what the Court sees.) This is especially important because both civilly and criminally, the Judiciary is the means by which the State enforces its power over us.

While it is a necessary legal precept that "ignorance of the law is no defense", it is also true that nobody can possibly know all the law...especially since laws are continuously being rewritten and reinterpreted. What was legal yesterday may be illegal today, or vice versa. Since none of us know all the laws, all of us run afoul of them, whether or not we are cought.

If we could perfectly follow the law, we would have no need or use for lawyers. Since we cannot, we retain lawyers to explain the law to us, and to represent us against adversary parties or the direct power of the State.

When we retain a lawyer, we pay him, and he is OUR lawyer. Our communications with him are privileged, and he is bound to represent us zealously, and without conflict of interest. These are not mere words or nice ideas; they are absolutely necessary to maintaining a free society. The ONLY way you have power against the State is to know and understand how the law fits your situation, and to give the Court (the State's enforcer) only that information which is in your best interest to give it.

If your attorney gives information to the Court or to the State about your violations of the law, several things happen:

1. You cannot safely confide in your attorney or give him all of the facts.

2. Neither you nor your attorney can accurately determine what your legal status is, or what course of action best protects you against the power of the State or your adversary.

3. The attorney you have paid for now becomes an investigator working for the State, against your interest. You would be unilaterally disarmed against the power of the State.

Had this rule been adopted, our legal system would have been fundamentally transformed, from one in which the individual has the power to protect himself against the State, to one in which he has none.

This is not the last time this idea will come up. If it ever passes, tyranny will not be far behind.

images/icons/frown.gif

[ThomasMore]

I don't think we are there yet, but well on our way. Most of the public has been intellectually and morally disarmed, and that is my greatest worry.

The Nazis are out there and are increasing their power, but the concentration camps and mental wards haven't yet been opened.

This is why it is so important to keep the words and ideas of liberty visible among the public. We have to continue to fight the good fight.

May God grant us the wisdom to know the truth, and the strength to live that truth.

[DesertFox]

Thankfully, we already know the truth -- it was doped out for us by people much smarter than we, two-and-a-quarter centuries back. All we gotta do is adhere to their guidelines.

And the richer we get as a nation, the harder that seems to do. Some sage observed indignantly that people look at the complex system we live in and think it just happened.

[Venus]

Thomas, I believe that tyranny is here. It's simply camoflauged under other guises.

In this case, this is evident to me by the fact that this was even conjured and considered at all.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

ABA is left wing organization or at least under the control of the left .. and the proposed rule to limit the lawyer client privilege is just one example ...

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Part of any law exam or Bar exam is to argue both sides.
The side I've seen here is from the point of someone accused of something who is talking to their attorney.
This following account was related by a practicing criminal attorney to a class studying criminal law.
The attorney, let us call him Mr. A, is called to Los Angeles as a referral from another attorney. He is to represent Mr. C,
who is now sitting in L A County jail for
a burglary charge.
Mr. C in the interview is talkative, and from the conversation, Mr. A can have the charges dropped or get a "plea bargain" for Mr. C. Mr. A. asks if Mr. C can pay for A's services. "Oh, yes. I have a money-making business" "What is that?" Mr A asks.
C is a free lance contract killer, who learned that he loved killing after serving a year in VietNam. He will kill anyone you ask him to for 15 to 20, 0000 dollars. You get a price reduction if you let him kill the person the way he wants to, i.e., torturing the person over several days.
A shocked student says " you are an
" officer of the court"---have you told anyone in law enforcement this?"
" Oh, no--that would violate the attorney-client privilege."