Comments on: “Why Do Lawyers Mouth Clients’ Ridiculous Alibis?”

By: KRS

KRS — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:10:17 +0000

If anyone cares to comment on this, I’d appreciate it.

A defense attorney has a duty to his client to give the client sound advice and to advocate vigorously for his client’s interests, subject to (1) applicable law, (2) applicable ethics rules, and (3) the client’s wishes.

On (3), if the client insists on taking the position that he is innocent and has an alibi, is it not the lawyer’s duty to advance that position to the extent that law and ethics allow? Was Mr. Keker aware, when he made those statements, of the evidence against Scruggs? If not, if Scruggs wanted to assert his innocence, and if any good faith argument could be made that Scruggs was, in fact, innocent, then it doesn’t seem so heinous to me that Keker would make the statements he did.

Also, does Mr. Phillips mean to imply that when a lawyer arguably “vouches” for his client in public that that should operate as a waiver of the attorney-client privilege?

I’m a big fan of this blog and the opposite of a big fan of Dickie Scruggs and his ilk, but I’m a bit curious about some of the statements in this post.

By: Anonymous Attorney

Anonymous Attorney — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:14:41 +0000

I have to disagree with Mr. Phillips. First, it seems reasonable that a brief elaboration of a denial is appropriate for a criminal defense attorney to make to the press. What else are they going to say? My client did it? And I doubt the public hears those denials and misunderstands the source and context. Second, in Scruggs’ case, the “alibi” I see referenced isn’t really a specific one, more of a dressed-up denial. That’s fair. In the civil context, would Mr. Phillips accuse defense attorneys of being ‘wrong’ or ‘ignorant’ to settle a case they’d filed an answer denying liability on? Nah.

By: stevemorgan

stevemorgan — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:22:14 +0000

For the first time in over 125 years, the North Carolina legislature last week expelled a sitting member, Thomas Wright from Wilmington, NC.
Wright has been accused of using campaign funds for personal use, not filing mandatory election returns for several years and influencing a state employee to do something disreputable that I can’t remember.

Wright is under indictment and will stand trial at the end of May on these charges.

During the expulsion hearing, Wright’s attorney compared Wright’s prosecution to the Crucifixion but mercifully that is where the analogies and comparisons ended.

In this century in the US an attorney can say anything and will say anything without any regard to how it relates to the truth.

By: Nicolas

Nicolas — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:33:24 +0000

I dread to think what Nancy Grace will do if attorneys stop going on her show to mouth ridiculous alibis. Fortunately, attorney dishonesty is not a professional liability. If you manifest it before a congressional committee it can get you elevated to the Supreme Court.

By: BlacquesJacquesShellacques

BlacquesJacquesShellacques — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 11:48:39 +0000

So we have lawyers repeatedly lying in public and bar associations and discipline groups doing nothing.

Reason no 4,397,432 why lawyers are so well beloved.