Speaking of ethics and the law ~ okay, you weren't, but it's an ongoing converstion here. Somehow SO and I have fallen into a steady diet of The Practice via our good friend, Tivo. While other bloggers are identifying various instances of tortious conduct and common law crimes in their t.v. viewing, I find myself noticing (and commenting on) gross ethical and procedural violations - on both sides of the docket. My family has long since gotten used to my Law & Order "that was not a 'statement against interest!" rants. More though-provoking are the ethical slippery slopes - especially the ones that are not in direct violation of the rules. I remember watching an episode of Boston Legal last season (a show that should rarely be taken seriously) that ended with Alan saying to his friend, "You will recall that I once advised you to flee the practice of law. It's an ugly occupation which calls upon its participants to do ugly things. I am very accomplished in the practice of law."
And (in the context of that episode) he was right. He was a 'good lawyer.' Very depressing realization, and not all that different than I was advised by a local attorney as I left for law school.
I was always a Law & Order fan until the evidence and procedure portrayals did me in. I like that a prosecutor's ethical obligation is the truth. While I'm not naive enough to think it is always true for every ADA, I probably am naive enough to want to believe. Nothing bothers me more than to see a slippery slope there - on t.v. or in real life. In law school, a negotiation class divided into pairs - prosecutors & defense attorneys - to deal with a plea negotiation where the defense facts clearly stated that the defendant was innocent. Possible pleas ranged from a minor violation with a fine or probation on up. The 'prosecutors' were under pressure from the DA, etc., to secure a plea or conviction on every arrest (vandelism). After each team reported the results of the negotiation (almost all ended in some kind of plea), the professor asked the class, "Did the fact that the defendant didn't do it influence your negotiations?" I expected to hear defense attorneys say that it mattered, but that in their opinion, a plea to a reduced charge would be better for the client in the long run v. a more serious conviction (still worrisome, but at least understandable. Maybe.) But the class response completely blew me away - no one who had negotiated a plea thought his innocence mattered! And this came from both sides! 'Nah, it didn't really enter into it at all . . . ' 'Not really . . . ' 'It was easier to just deal with the other side to get something worked out . . . ' omg. Does this worry anyone?
Watching a defense-oriented show now has it's ups and downs. It reinforces my belief that I probably could not do that job. I absolutely believe in the value and importance of a good defense attorney - I just don't think I want that level of potential conflict for myself. But then, I've seen real-life ADAs instructed to prosecute cases left over from 'a prior regime' that never should have been charged in the first place. Not life or death ~ not even serious (if any) jail time. But while everyone could look at the facts and wonder 'why did they even take this case ~ there's nothing here!' . . . the political climate was 'dismissals look weak and are closely scrutinized - can't be weak on crime'. And another where cases that should have been prosecuted, but weren't out & out 'slam dunks' were bargained down to nothing just to keep the conviction rate up.
How are we supposed to find our way and be true to ourselves, our clients, and the oath that we all hope to take in November? Being able to pass the MPRE isn't nearly enough guidance.
No comments:
Post a Comment