1

Legal EthicsLecture 18

Prof. Howard Leib© 2017 National Juris University

22Ethical Problems in Litigation

33The Duty To See Justice DoneProblem #30 - Facts

• Hamilton York was hired by a workers’ compensation insurance carrier in the defense of a compensation claim brought by a woman who had been assaulted in the course of her duties as a hotel night clerk.

• As a direct result of the assault, the woman suffered severe psychological shock that disabled her and prevented her from obtaining and holding gainful employment.

• In the course of defending the substantial claim for compensation, the attorney was furnished psychological reports indicating that the claimant said she had been assaulted by “a black man.”

• The psychologist concluded that, as a result of her experience, whenever she encountered an African-American male, she became extremely fearful and withdrew into herself.

• Indeed, her psychological problems were such that if she even encountered a dark-skinned man walking down the street, she became terrified and would turn around and run.

• Further, she was unable to distinguish one African-American man from another.

44The Duty To See Justice DoneProblem #30 - Facts

• She considered all such men to be her attacker and this psychological situation had existed since the time of the attack.

• In connection with the investigation of the facts underlying this compensation claim, you’re also learned that the victim had identified the first African-American male she had seen in the lineup.

• At his criminal trial, the defendant, James Brooks, asserted an alibi that had been supported by two corroborating witnesses.

• However, the testimony of the victim had been so compelling that the jury apparently believed her.

• Brooks was convicted and sentenced to a life term in the penitentiary.

• Some of this information, at least as to the general nature of the victim’s disability, was available to both the prosecution and defense at the time of the criminal trial, but not to the extent that was developed later in the course of the workers’ compensation negotiations.

55The Duty To See Justice DoneProblem #30 - Facts

• The psychologists’ reports were furnished by the claimant’s attorney to York with an explicit demand that their contents be revealed only to persons involved in settling the claim.

• The claim will soon be settled without a trial and the reports will not become a matter of public record.

• York has never handled a criminal case in his professional career, and the facts he finds himself facing in this instance are the closest he has ever come to the criminal justice system.

• He believes an innocent man may be in the penitentiary for the rest of his life unless he acts, but Brooks is not his client and he does not know how to proceed.

6The Duty to See Justice DoneDuties of a Lawyer Who Discovers Injustice

• A1. To whom does York, the workers’ compensation attorney, owe duties in this situation? What kinds of duties?

• The information York has learned is confidential client information under Rule 1.6(a) or Rule 1.9(c)

• Rule 1.9(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

• (2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client.

• York may counsel his client to waive its confidentiality rights. Rule 2.1

• Consider Rule 1.6(b)(1). Is physical incarceration “substantial bodily harm”?

7

• A3. Does York have any duty to the court that tried the case or to the man he believes was wrongly convicted?

• Obligation to the court:

• Rule 3.3(b) only requires disclosure until the end of the case, not now.

• York himself was not involved in the earlier trial and offered no evidence to the court.

• But Rule 3.3 does not prevent disclosure.

• Obligation to the convicted man:

• Rule 1.6(b)(1) is possibly available to permit disclosure.

• Note that there is no requirement that the death or substantial bodily harm be caused by the client.

The Duty to See Justice DoneDuties of a Lawyer Who Discovers Injustice

8The Duty to See Justice DoneThe Obligation to Respond to an Injustice

• C2. Does the former or current prosecutor have an ethical obligation to take another look at this case?

• Yes, under Rules added in February 2008.

• Rule 3.8(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction.

• Why have only four states adopted Rules 3.8(g) and (h)?

99Jagged Edge (1985)M_Jagged_14

1010Nix v. Whiteside475 U.S. 157 (1986)

• Facts

• Whiteside was accused of murder.

• For his trial, he was appointed a lawyer, Robinson.

• As they were preparing for trial, Whiteside and his friends who were present during the shooting all told Robinson that they saw the victim reaching for something, though they could not see what.

• Robinson’s defense strategy was self-defense because Whiteside reasonably believed that the victim was reaching for a gun.

• However, a week before trial, Whiteside told Robinson that the thing the victim had been reaching for was metallic.

• When Robinson questioned him further, Whiteside said that if he did not testify that he saw a gun he would be “dead.”

• Robinson assured Whiteside that all they needed to prove was reasonable belief the victim had a gun.

1111Nix v. Whiteside475 U.S. 157 (1986)

• Facts

• Robinson went on to say that if Whiteside testified to seeing something metallic, this would be perjury and Robinson would have to tell the court.

• Whiteside did testify at trial but did not perjure himself.

• The jury found Whiteside guilty of murder.

• Whiteside moved for a new trial claiming he had been deprived of a fair trial when Robinson told him not to testify to seeing something metallic.

• The trial court denied the motion.

• The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, held that Robinson’s threat to violate attorney-client privilege violated the standards of effective representation.

1212Nix v. Whiteside475 U.S. 157 (1986)

• Issue

• Is a defendant denied the effective assistance of counsel when counsel informs him that if he commits perjury, counsel is obligated to disclose this information to the court?

1313Nix v. Whiteside475 U.S. 157 (1986)

• Ruling

• No. There is no ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel informs a defendant that he must disclose perjury to the court because an attorney cannot allow a client to give false testimony.

• The Model Code of Professional Responsibility, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and the American Bar Association require such disclosure.

• The state Code of Professional Responsibility allows withdrawal of representation when a client threatens to commit perjury.

• Furthermore, precedence supports this almost universal standard [Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)].

• Therefore, Robinson’s actions were in line with accepted norms of professional conduct and did not deprive Whiteside of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

1414Nix v. Whiteside475 U.S. 157 (1986)

• Ruling

• Robinson continued to present the self-defense argument to the jury.

• His admonition merely prevented Robinson from perjuring himself. Accordingly, there was no ineffective assistance of counsel.

• (Concurrence by J. Brennan) The Court has no authority to establish rules of ethics to govern lawyers practicing in state courts.

• While counsel must take all reasonable and lawful means to attain the objectives of the client, counsel may not assist the client in presenting false evidence or otherwise violating the law.

1515Litigation and Other Forms of AdvocacySummary

• On behalf of a client, you cannot present frivolous claims, defenses, or motions, but you can make a good faith argument for extending, modifying or reversing existing law. Rule 3.1

• You cannot present frivolous discovery requests or fail to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with discovery requests. Rules 3.4(a), (d).

• When you seek an ex parte order from a tribunal, you must disclose both all applicable law and all material facts that you reasonably believe are necessary for the tribunal to make an informed decision. Rule 3.3(d).

• You cannot knowingly make a false statement of law to a tribunal, in a filed document or in open court. If you make a statement which you later discover was false, you must correct it if it was a materially false statement. Rule 3.3(a)(1).

1616

• You have a duty to voluntarily disclose to the tribunal any legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction that you know is directly adverse to your client’s position and which your adversary has not disclosed. Rule 3.3(a)(2).

• There is no constitutional right for a party to lie or for you to assist in that perjury, Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986), even when your client insists.

• If you learn before the conclusion of the proceedings that a piece of evidence you offered was false when admitted, you must take reasonable remedial measures: try to convince your client to correct it, consider withdrawal, or disclose the information to the tribunal. Rule 3.3(a)(3).

• You cannot unlawfully obstruct access to, alter, or conceal evidence or witnesses, and you cannot encourage a witness to testify falsely. Rule 3.4(a)-(b).

Litigation and Other Forms of AdvocacySummary

1717

• During trial, you may allude only to matters that you reasonably believe are relevant or admissible, e.g., asking a clearly prohibited question. In closing argument you cannot assert your personal opinion or knowledge about the facts. Rule 3.4(e).

• There cannot be improper ex parte communications with jurors or prospective jurors during the proceedings. Rule 3.5(b).

• Extrajudicial speech is restricted when it “will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.” Rule 3.6(a). The perspective for examining that standard is from the view of the reasonable lawyer making the statement, rather than the reasonable person.

Litigation and Other Forms of AdvocacySummary

1818

• You may make statements that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect your client from the “substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by” you or your client. Rule 3.6(c).

• If you will be testifying in a case where you are counsel of record, you must withdraw as counsel, subject to several exceptions: the testimony relates to an uncontested issue, the testimony relates to the nature and value of the lawyer’s legal services in that case, and withdrawal would work a “substantial hardship on” the client.

Litigation and Other Forms of AdvocacySummary

1919Quick Quiz

2020End Of Class Review Quiz

2121The End

2222MRPC 1.6

Confidentiality of Information• (a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the

representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).

• (b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:

• (1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;

• (2) to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer's services;

• (3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client's commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer's services;

• (4) to secure legal advice about the lawyer's compliance with these Rules;

2323MRPC 1.6

Confidentiality of Information

• (b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the

representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably

believes necessary:

• (5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a

controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a

defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based

upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to

allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's

representation of the client;

• (6) to comply with other law or a court order; or

• (7) to detect and resolve conflicts of interest arising from the

lawyer’s change of employment or from changes in the

composition or ownership of a firm, but only if the revealed

information would not compromise the attorney-client privilege or

otherwise prejudice the client.

• (c) A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the

inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized

access to, information relating to the representation of a client.

2424MRPC 1.9

Duties to Former Clients

• (a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

• (b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a client

• (1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and

• (2) about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

2525MRPC 1.9

Duties to Former Clients

• (c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

• (1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known; or

• (2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client.

2626MRPC 2.1Advisor

• In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the client's situation.

2727MRPC 3.1

Meritorious Claims And Contentions• A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding,

or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.

2828MRPC 3.3

Candor Toward The Tribunal• (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

• (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

• (2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

• (3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

• (b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

2929MRPC 3.3

Candor Toward The Tribunal• (c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the

conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

• (d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

3030MRPC 3.4

Fairness to Opposing Party & Counsel• A lawyer shall not:

• (a) unlawfully obstruct another party' s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;

• (b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law;

• (c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists;

• (d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party;

3131MRPC 3.4

Fairness to Opposing Party & Counsel• (e) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably

believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused; or

• (f) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless:

• (1) the person is a relative or an employee or other agent of a client; and

• (2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person's interests will not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information.

3232MRPC 3.5

Impartiality & Decorum of the Tribunal• A lawyer shall not:

• (a) seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law;

• (b) communicate ex parte with such a person during the proceeding unless authorized to do so by law or court order;

• (c) communicate with a juror or prospective juror after discharge of the jury if:

• (1) the communication is prohibited by law or court order;

• (2) the juror has made known to the lawyer a desire not to communicate; or

• (3) the communication involves misrepresentation, coercion, duress or harassment; or

• (d) engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.

3333MRPC 3.6

Trial Publicity• (a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the

investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

• (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state:

• (1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;

• (2) information contained in a public record;

• (3) that an investigation of a matter is in progress;

• (4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation;

• (5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto;

• (6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest; and

3434MRPC 3.6

Trial Publicity• (7) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1) through (6):

• (i) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of the accused;

• (ii) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in apprehension of that person;

• (iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; and

• (iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation.

• (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.

• (d) No lawyer associated in a firm or government agency with a lawyer subject to paragraph (a) shall make a statement prohibited by paragraph (a).

3535MRPC 3.8

Special Responsibilities of the Prosecutor• The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

• (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

• (b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;

• (c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing;

• (d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;

3636MRPC 3.8

Special Responsibilities of the Prosecutor• (e) not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal

proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless the prosecutor reasonably believes:

• (1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege;

• (2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution; and

• (3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information;

• (f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

3737MRPC 3.8

Special Responsibilities of the Prosecutor• (g) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material

evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense of which the defendant was convicted, the prosecutor shall:

• (1) promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or authority, and

• (2) if the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction,

• (i) promptly disclose that evidence to the defendant unless a court authorizes delay, and

• (ii) undertake further investigation, or make reasonable efforts to cause an investigation, to determine whether the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit.

• (h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction.