Well clients are allowed to talk to their lawyers about what they did cause it's a protected conversation, between attorney and client right? When the protected conversation is documented, where is it stored?
Well okay, let's say that the lawyer is away from the case, but then he has to come back it again later on in court. He doesn't want to forget anything by having to memorize it all. Wouldn't he write it down and put it somewhere so he doesn't forget?
If you were a defense lawyer why would you write down anything about how your client committed his crime since you arent going to present that info in court, and you will have to provide information you have to the prosecution in disclosure ? Many defense lawyers tell their clients specifically not to tell them that they are guilty , or to tell them details of the commision of the crime because it is irrelevant to presenting a not guilty defense ... it is of course different if the client is pleading, but that isnt relevant here
Your client in this situation is supposed to be a criminal mastermind, right? Am I right on that? So s/he would know better than to confess to the defense lawyer, because once the lawyer knows the client committed the crime, the lawyer can no longer advance a case in court that the client didn't commit the crime. That is, the lawyer can't deliberately lie or promote a lie in court. From the point that the lawyer becomes aware of the client's guilt, the lawyer can only try to disprove legal guilt, not factual guilt. That is, the defense can try to show that the prosecution hasn't made their case, but the defense can't actually try to prove that the client is factually guilty.
There are exceptions in popular fiction, for example in the Lincoln Lawyer Spoiler Ross Roulet tells Mickey Haller that he's guilty of multiple counts however he knows hes putting Haller in an impoossible situation by telling him this because he is also blackmailing him having framed him for murder... basically he tells him because hes an evil manipulative shite however as a general principal I'd agree that there is no good reason to tell your defense lawyer you are guilty unless you intend to plead guilty ... and even then he will only want to know strictly pertinent facts also assuming that the lawyer is reasonably bright (and if hes not how did he pass the bar) if hes got a client who he knows is an evil psychopathic genius, why would he take the risk of incriminating said client by writing down everything he knows and leaving it in an unlocked filing cabinet... not only would he be risking getting debarred he'd also be risking the EPG being pissed with him
To be fair the OP is constructing a work of fiction, so its not so much about what is absolutely accurate as what is plausible, which is the real diffeence here Connelly used to be a journalist/police reporter , Grisham was an attorney and so on, so while they periodically take dramatic licence with the letter of the law what they suggest is broadly plausible. I'd tend to suggest that a detective (who is probably tolerably well known to the defense attorney community - as he'd almost certainly have testified on cases at least some of them worked on ) walking in to a law firm with a stolen key card during the hours of business, rifling through a lawyers files then walking out with information no lawyer in his right mind would have written down anyway stretches plausibility too far
Okay thanks. The problem is, is that I have misinterpreted the law. I thought that the conversations had between a lawyer and his client were protected conversations. By this I thought that that meant, that any confession that is written down by the lawyer, could not be used for incrimination, cause it's protected. I thought that any notes on a confession was protected by the law, period. So I thought the defendant would have had nothing to worry about legally by telling the lawyer what happened. However, I didn't think of the villain as a mastermind, since he makes mistakes that eventually get him caught. Is he one? But apparently, a conversation between lawyer and client, is not actually protected then like they say?
a lawyers case notes generally are privilledged info and can't be subpeanad etc - however as per various posts a defendant isnt going to tell his lawyer he's guilty. Also if they are stolen they'd be inadmissable anyway , so it would only be if a lawyer made them available, and he'd be in the shit with the bar for doing that in most cases I don't want to be harsh but frankly looking across the various threads you've got far bigger problems with plausability than this particular point
I don't understand what you're doing. Like, as a forum participant, not a writer. You've asked these same questions over at AW and gotten the same answers. They've explained to you about lawyers not being allowed to lie to the court. You brought up the idea of attorney-client privilege and they explained the rules to you. Now you're over here acting as if it's the first you've heard of it? I'm just gonna use the ignore function, I think--I'm really not seeing any point in trying to communicate with you.
But in story the case notes, are not subpoenaed at all. They are just broken into and looked at, by an obsessively curious character. The character puts them back after reading what he wants to know, which is the truth, and then puts the file back. Now the character walks out with this newfound knowledge, and knows the truth, which is what he wanted. There is no subpoenaing of the files, nor are any files stolen. So what does admissibility matter, when all the MC wanted to know was the truth? What are the other problems with plausibility? Well my original OP question is that how could the MC find out the truth about what really happened in the case, an alternate way, if the lawyer would not have written down what really happened. I also wanted to know more than the lawyer I asked told me about the law. I mean it was said on here, that lawyers do not like to know their client is guilty cause it's legally wrong of them to lie. But lawyers have lied before in court about their clients innocence and have gotten away with it legally, so therefore, I didn't think it was illegal and I thought the conversation was protected, like they say.
The fact that no lawyer would write that sort of stuff down and include it in a case file (a lawyer would have a legal duty to report a corrupt cop if he knew his identity -and likewise could not represent his client as innocent if he knew he was guilty) The fact that a cop could not just stroll into a law firm and lift documents without being caught And so on - just read the thread and the other eleventy like it
How do you know a lawyer has lied in court about his clients inocence ? - in most cases the lawyer almost certainly told the client "don't tell me if you're guilty i don't want to know"
well I thought the cop would go in at night, when people have gone home. I am not saying that the client has directly told the lawyer that the are guilty, but there often pieces of evidence in the case that speak for themselves on incriminating the client, so sometimes it's obvious. And in my story, the client doesn't have to tell the lawyer that he is guilty, but can point out that he knows that the cop is not an honest one, and of course make up some story as to why.
If he goes in at night the filing cabinets etc will be locked, and the key cards won't work on account of the doors also being deadlocked ... is he an expert burglar (unlikely ) ... i suppose he could ask a burglar he knows 'from the street' for help - but thats a howling cliche On the latter point the lawyer can't know the identy if a corrupt cop without reporting it, unless he himself is dirty - and if he is unless is collosaly stupid he isnt going to record it in his case files
Okay thanks. But Steerpike said this before in his/her post on this thread: So I thought that according to Steerpike's knowledge, that all you need to get in at night, is an electronic card only. I thought that if a client confesses details of the crime and the lawyer wrote them down, the client would probably ask "should you be writing this down if it's details of the crime?". To which the lawyer would answer "It's a protected conversation and no one is allowed to use it as evidence, if it were ever seen. I am just making notes for reference".
For about the 15th time the lawyer can't have knowledge that his client is definitely guilty if he's presenting him as innocent, so the client doesn't confess to the lawyer and if he does the lawyer stops him and doesn't record anything Also why would a defense lawyer "make notes for reference" of information he neither wants or needs
Even if the lawyer knows the client is guilty, he can, however, still make arguments regarding problems with the State's case, evidence, whether they've met their burden of proof, &c. (and as a zealous advocate, should do those things).
Well I thought that one of the prosecution's witnesses being a corrupt cop who was lying in his testimony, be something that the lawyer would write down, for reference, so he would know exactly what he was lying about, and not forgetting anything later.
point a) why would the DA risk the case and his career by putting corrupt cop on the stand rather than reporting him to IAD, and point b) why would the defense attorney not simply blow the case out of the water by exposing said corrupt cop and his demonstrable untruths Again its not so much a plot hole as a yawning chasm of non credibility
The DA has no idea the cop is corrupt. Only the defendant knows, as well as the defense attorney, should he piece it together that he is. The reason why the defense doesn't blow the cast out of the water, and expose the corrupt cop, is because the cop's corruption is connected to the defendant. The defense attorney cannot expose the corrupt cop, without exposing his own client along with him. So if the defense attorney exposes the corrupt cop, then he risks exposing his own client in the process. So in order for the defense attorney to keep his client's guilt, a secret in the courtroom, he cannot expose the corrupt cop per say. Unless he finds a way to do it, without connecting his client, but I don't know if that's possible. Even he did expose the corrupt cop, without implicating the his client, the corrupt cop can still cut a deal and bring the client down with him, if things get worse. The prosecutor doesn't not know that the cop he is putting on the stand is corrupt and connected to the defendant. Doesn't that make sense?
But if the corrupt cop is lying to the detriment of the client and the defense attorney knows he's lying why doesn't he call him on those lies ? If he doesn't know he's lying how can he record that in his files ? Also a defendant saying a cop is lying isn't enough for a lawyer to believe the cop to be corrupt - defendants are mostly criminals and every lawyer knows criminals lie. End of the day this has to be one of the most complex and convoluted plots I've ever encountered - which would be a good thing if it weren't for the lack of believability
The lawyer knows the corrupt cop is lying, depending on if the client would tell him. Basically the cop's corruption is connected to the defendant. The lawyer wouldn't want to expose the cop's corruption, cause he cannot expose it without exposing his own client. The prosecutor doesn't know the cop is corrupt and is connected to the defendant. The cop was ordered in his job, to arrest the defendant along with some other officers. He was given the assignment and no one knows that his corruption is connected to the defendant. So the cop has to go and arrest someone that he is connected with crime-wise, cause he was given the order too. If he refuses, other officers will just do it anyway, and it will look suspicious of him to refuse. So he does it, since it's inevitable. The prosecutor then puts the corrupt cop on his witness list, since he was one of the arresting officers. The prosecutor doesn't know he is corrupt, and puts him on the list, to testify about the arrest for the court. So the corrupt cop has the unfortunate position having to testify against someone he is connected with, corruption wise. But he doesn't have to say anything to implicate himself. All he has to do is explain to the court, how he arrested him and what happened. That is all. What part is not believable or too convoluted about that?
