Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Ethical Bind for Lawyers; (what's confidential?)
Topic Started: Mar 9 2008, 07:39 AM (73 Views)
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Interesting case:

26-Year Secret Kept Innocent Man In Prison.

Alton Logan doesn't understand why two lawyers with proof he didn't commit murder were legally prevented from helping him. They had their reasons: To save Logan, they would have had to break the cardinal rule of attorney-client privilege to reveal their own client had committed the crime. But Logan had 26 years in prison to try to understand why he was convicted for a crime he didn't commit....

Lawyers Jamie Kunz and Dale Coventry were public defenders when their client, Andrew Wilson, admitted to them he had shot-gunned a security guard to death in a 1982 robbery. When a tip led to Logan's arrest and he went to trial for the crime, the two lawyers were in a bind. They wanted to help Logan but legally couldn't.

The rules of conduct for attorneys, it's very, very clear…. We're in a position to where we have to maintain client confidentiality, just as a priest would or a doctor would. It's just a requirement of the law. The system wouldn’t work without it," says Coventry.

They watched Logan’s trial to see whether he got a life or death sentence. "We thought that somehow we would stop at least the execution," Coventry tells Simon. "Morally, there’s very little difference and we were torn about that, but in terms of the canons of ethics, there is a difference -- you can prevent a death."

Logan doesn't see it that way. "There is no difference between life in prison and a death penalty, none whatsoever. Both are a sentence of death," says Logan, who pointed out that it is easy to be murdered in a dangerous prison.

The lawyers say it was hard on them mentally. "There’s nothing you can say [to Logan]," says Coventry. "It's been difficult for us. But there’s no comparison whatsoever to what it's been for this poor guy," he says "Alton, whether or not you can understand it, we’ve been hurting for you for 26 years," says Kunz. "How often did I think about it? Probably 250 times a year. I mean I thought about it regularly."

It’s little consolation to Logan. "Everything that was dear to me is gone," he tells Simon.

The lawyers did get permission from Wilson, to reveal upon his death his confession to the murder Logan was convicted for. Wilson died late last year and Coventry and Kunz came forward. Next Monday, a judge will hear evidence in a motion to grant Logan a new trial.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Wow.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
George K
Mar 9 2008, 10:39 AM
Interesting case:

26-Year Secret Kept Innocent Man In Prison.

Alton Logan doesn't understand why two lawyers with proof he didn't commit murder were legally prevented from helping him. They had their reasons: To save Logan, they would have had to break the cardinal rule of attorney-client privilege to reveal their own client had committed the crime. But Logan had 26 years in prison to try to understand why he was convicted for a crime he didn't commit....

Lawyers Jamie Kunz and Dale Coventry were public defenders when their client, Andrew Wilson, admitted to them he had shot-gunned a security guard to death in a 1982 robbery. When a tip led to Logan's arrest and he went to trial for the crime, the two lawyers were in a bind. They wanted to help Logan but legally couldn't.

The rules of conduct for attorneys, it's very, very clear…. We're in a position to where we have to maintain client confidentiality, just as a priest would or a doctor would. It's just a requirement of the law. The system wouldn’t work without it," says Coventry.

They watched Logan’s trial to see whether he got a life or death sentence. "We thought that somehow we would stop at least the execution," Coventry tells Simon. "Morally, there’s very little difference and we were torn about that, but in terms of the canons of ethics, there is a difference -- you can prevent a death."

Logan doesn't see it that way. "There is no difference between life in prison and a death penalty, none whatsoever. Both are a sentence of death," says Logan, who pointed out that it is easy to be murdered in a dangerous prison.

The lawyers say it was hard on them mentally. "There’s nothing you can say [to Logan]," says Coventry. "It's been difficult for us. But there’s no comparison whatsoever to what it's been for this poor guy," he says "Alton, whether or not you can understand it, we’ve been hurting for you for 26 years," says Kunz. "How often did I think about it? Probably 250 times a year. I mean I thought about it regularly."

It’s little consolation to Logan. "Everything that was dear to me is gone," he tells Simon.

The lawyers did get permission from Wilson, to reveal upon his death his confession to the murder Logan was convicted for. Wilson died late last year and Coventry and Kunz came forward. Next Monday, a judge will hear evidence in a motion to grant Logan a new trial.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Wow.

Think about it this way, George.

In 99% of the cases, if you tell your client, "if you tell me that you are guilty, I might be obligated to reveal that" ... he'd never tell you.

The only reason Wilson made the admission was because he knew they couldn't reveal it. That's why he told them that they were permitted to reveal it upon his death.

So, if the lawyers had been allowed to reveal the admission, it would never have happened. And Logan would still be in the same place.

Except that no one would be free to exonerate him upon Wilson's death.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
I thought that if a client clearly admitted to a crime of that magnitude, the attorney was obligated to report it.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Mar 9 2008, 10:59 AM
I thought that if a client clearly admitted to a crime of that magnitude, the attorney was obligated to report it.

In order to prevent future physical harm to a person, yes.

An admission of guilt to a past crime, no.

The one caveat to that ... a lawyer cannot allow a client to perjure himself. If the client tells you he's guilty, and then plans to get on the stand and say he didn't do it, the lawyer cannot allow him to do that.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CTPianotech
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
It seems to me that there would have to be some way for the attorneys to privately let the police know they were barking up the wrong tree.

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Here's the relevant disciplinary rule from the Model Rules of Professional Conduct:

Quote:
 
DR 4-101 Preservation of Confidences and Secrets of a Client.

(A) "Confidence" refers to information protected by the attorney-client privilege under applicable law, and "secret" refers to other information gained in the professional relationship that the client has requested be held inviolate or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would be likely to be detrimental to the client.

(B) Except when permitted under DR 4-101©, a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) Reveal a confidence or secret of his client.

(2) Use a confidence or secret of his client to the disadvantage of the client.

(3) Use a confidence or secret of his client for the advantage of himself or of a third person, unless the client consents after full disclosure.

© A lawyer may reveal:

(1) Confidences or secrets with the consent of the client or clients affected, but only after a full disclosure to them.

(2) Confidences or secrets when permitted under Disciplinary Rules or required by law or court order.

(3) The intention of his client to commit a crime and the information necessary to prevent the crime.

(4) Confidences or secrets necessary to establish or collect his fee or to defend himself or his employees or associates against an accusation of wrongful conduct.

(D) A lawyer shall exercise reasonable care to prevent his employees, associates, and others whose services are utilized by him from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of a client, except that a lawyer may reveal the information allowed by DR 4-101© through an employee.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply