Comments on: Acts “that in other contexts might seem unethical or even dishonest”

By: Samson Isberg

Samson Isberg — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 05:09:15 +0000

I do not think defense attorneys are required by duty to “defend the actual criminal behavior” of anyone. They are required to defend the accused person – the defendant – , either by showing that he isn’t a criminal, or – if he indeed is a criminal – by showing the jury that there were mitigating circumstances. The attorney is defending the murderer, not the murder.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:22:34 +0000

@Smart Dude: Really? I’d consider it unethical for me or most others to defend the actual criminal behavior of any Joe off the street. Defense attorneys are required by duty and law to do so, regardless of Joe’s actual guilt.

By: Smart Dude

Smart Dude — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:02:00 +0000

Acts “that in other contexts might seem unethical or even dishonest” are in fact unethical or even dishonest.

By: Jackie Chiles

Jackie Chiles — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:41:31 +0000

Ms. Langford’s attempt to equate Donziger’s actions with choosing which of three experts to testify is laughably weak.

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:48:40 +0000

The article basically says its okay because a lawyer’s job is to make money for the client, which fails on two counts. Accepting that premise would mean unethical behavior should be acceptable for any profession as long as the company they work for makes money. Second, unless there is no contingency fee, the lawyer actions would result in self enrichment.