If a defense attorney finds out that his client is guilty of a crime, does that lawyer have an obligation to report it? In other words, if a lawyer finds evidence that his client did murder someone, and the client insists on pleading "Not Guilty," does that lawyer have to continue defending him? Can he testify against him?
It just seems odd that a lawyer may have to fight his hardest to get someone off the hook whom he knows is guilty.
NotAnyoneYouKnow2008-01-26T18:19:15Z
Favorite Answer
A very astute and interesting question, and a puzzle that has remained perhaps the most perplexing and difficult ethical problem for the legal profession for many, many years.
In order to even begin analyzing the problem, you have to realize that it is near impossible for an attorney to ever "know" that a client is guilty - that is, unless the attorney was there, at the time that the crime was committed.
A defendant who informs his attorney that he is guilty might be mentally deranged, covering for another person, hoping to negotiate a plea bargain, or maybe confused about what constitutes a crime, or who may have actually committed it. It's not enough just to have your client confess to you.
In the famous novel Crime and Punishment, by Dostoevsky, the readers know that the protagonist, Raskalnikov, has killed 2 women - however, during the course of the book, other people confess to those crimes. In that circumstance, Raskalnikov's attorney could not have known what to believe about his client's guilt or innocence. In real life, a client's guilt or innocence is rarely known, and rarely black or white.
Interesting articles, one of which I'll link below, have analyzed how an attorney's ethical responsibilities are drawn into conflict by a case where the lawyer "knows" that his client is guilty. An attorney is bound by his legal ethics to protect confidential client communications (his client's admission of guilt surely qualifies here), and he must "act with commitment and dedication to the interests of his client". At the same time, the ethics of law require that an attorney always proceed with "candor" and honesty towards the court.
In the 1967 Supreme Court case "U.S. v. Wade" (not Roe's Wade), Justice White wrote "[Unlike prosecutors] defense counsel had no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth...[W]e also insist that he defend his client whether he is innocent or guilty." White goes on to make other interesting and relevant points - I commend that dissent to you as interesting further reading.
The short answer is that - if it were possible to actually KNOW of a client's guilt - most attorneys would be torn between the responsibilities that they owe to their clients (especially that confidentiality issue!) and their own moral compass (cue the jokes that lawyers have no moral compass).
This is a very difficult issue, and one that brilliant minds have debated for many years within the profession.
Check the article I've linked below for a longer discussion of some of the points that I've raised.
No. When a client speaks with his lawyer anything he says with regard to a past crime that he has committed is considered privileged. All lawyers are bound to never reveal any such communication. It is called the attorney-client communications privilege. You have the absolute right to confidentiality when speaking with your lawyer regarding past acts.
Criminal defense is an adversarial system. The DA's job is to get a conviction. Your defense attorney's job is to give you the best defense regardless of whether you did it or not.
However, if a client tells an attorney about a criminal act that he plans to commit in the future this is not privileged and the lawyer is required to report the planned crime to the police.
I am not a lawyer. Only licensed lawyers can give legal advise. The above should not be construed as legal advise.
Just because some one is not guilty doesn't mean that they haven't committed the deed. In your example of killing someone, it may have been a justifiable homicide. The lawyer has a duty to present the best defense possible. This is our main protection from unlawful prosecution. The attorney cannot let the person get on the stand and commit perjury, but the attorney can only defend his/her client when fully informed thus any information gleaned from the defendant cannot be used because of attorney/client privilege. Teh same is true of your medical records. This allows the free exchange of information to important indivual protectors.
Client-Attorney confidentiality, no he does not have to report it. It is his job to defend the person. He may ask to be relieved of his duties (but the Judge will either appoint another attorney or the defendent will have to hire a new one). In some cases, the Judge will make the attorney defend the client no matter what. There is a murderer in my area that has had like 9 attorneys at this point. Everyone knows he did it but he is crazy, so he keeps firing his counsel and asking for new ones. He cut up two teenagers and put their bodies in a storage unit.
If the lawyer finds evidence that his client did do it, he doesn't have to tell anyone. But he would have to recuse himself from defending the individual - the law prevents a lawyer from lying in a court of law, as well as suborning perjury. A lawyer couldn't legally or ethically go on defending the client if he found proof that the client was in fact guilty.
The attorney would not be able to testify against the individual because of attorney/client privilege, and there would be no way of disclosing the evidence found without discussing items covered by the privilege.