Ethical dilemmas faced by attorneys
Attorneys are faced with ethical dilemmas in their routine tasks in many situations while dealing with their clients. It is unfortunate that these ethical dilemmas are considered as Model Rules violation and may have consequences. The American Bar Association came up with a Code of Professional Responsibility meant to set the guidelines which the attorneys should adhere to while delegating their duties and responsibilities. The Model Rules highlights these principles and divides them into Canons, Disciplinary Rules, and Ethical Considerations. However, these principles are often violated by the attorneys, as highlighted in the below cases.
In case scenario one, following a pre-trial, Ally Attorney, has just discovered that her client, Tommy, indicted on burglary charges, has been lying. Ally also discovers that Freddy, Tommy’s friend, knows about his lies and has an intention of disclosing it to Peter Prosecutor, which could lead to the conviction of Tommy. It follows that Ally visits Freddy and persuades him to keep incriminating information to himself for the interests of her client.
Ally has broken the model rule on obstruction of justice. According to the US system of justice, an attempt by the defendant to intentionally interfere with the process of justice by influencing a potential witness is considered to be an obstruction of justice. Ally tries to influence Freddy by persuading him to refrain from disclosing pivotal information that could be used in the conviction of Tommy. Obstruction of justice is a punishable offense with a prison term of five years. Ally’s actions could have jeopardized the case if Freddy decided to use her words in court. Since this was at the pre-trial stage, Ally should have let Freddy argue his case. Consequently, she should have listened to the statements made, and therein persuade the jury with facts and not the evidence presented.
In the second case scenario, Charlie Crasher has hired Larry Lawyer to represent him in a case sued by Polly Pedestrian for causing her injuries. Polly has a lawyer, Bob Bigfirm, whom Larry thinks is arrogant. Additionally, Larry does not like Polly and makes numerous phone calls to Bob and Polly, threatening them over the charges against his client.
Larry has broken two model rules, that is, contact rule and threatening in this case. Under contact rule, it is required that a lawyer should not make communication with the other party represented by the opposing counsel unless required by law or with the consent of the opposing attorney. Additionally, Larry also threatened the opposing counsel. Principles of ethics prohibit an attorney from engaging in any form of threats meant to gain an advantage in a civil matter. Threats may cause subversion of a legal process, making the opposing lawyer not assert his legal rights, thus jeopardizing the judicial process. Regarding the ethics of attorneys, Larry should have acted within the provisions by the ABA. He should have avoided personal confrontations with the opposing party outside the court proceedings to avoid breaking this code of ethics.
In the third scenario, George Greedy, an attorney, represents Councilman Carl Crook. Carl has filed a defamation case against Small Town Gazette. George Greedy knows that the article published contained some truth but decides to protect his client by influencing the public’s opinion in favor of Carl.
George broke ABA rules on social media solicitation in this scenario. George used Twitter, a social media platform, to gain an advantage in the case by influencing the public in favor of his client. George took advantage of his position as a lawyer to mislead the public by being dishonest to have the upper hand against the Small-Town Gazette in the case. Concerning the ABA principles, George should have refrained from solicitation acts on social media. He should have avoided being dishonest on the social media platform by giving false statements to win his client’s favor.