Article 2, Section 22 of the Arizona Constitution says that “[a]ll persons charged with crime shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except . . . [f]or felony offenses committed when the person charged is already admitted to bail on a separate felony charge and where the proof is evident or the presumption great as to the present charge.”
Knowing that, what do you say when you know your client’s new offense was allegedly committed while he was out on bond for another felony offense and the judge asks, “counsel, do you have any recommendations regarding bond?” Does it matter if the same judge is assigned to the client’s other case and presumably knows that the client was out on bail when he or she supposedly committed the new offense? Does it matter if the prosecutor doing coverage, who recommends a bond amount, is the assigned prosecutor on the client’s other case and presumably knows the client was out on bail when he or she supposedly committed the new offense?
In a situation like that, everyone but you is operating under some kind of false assumption. It’s not uncommon. In fact, I encountered a few situations like that last week (hence the post). They either don’t remember your client was on release, or they don’t know about Article 2, Section 22. Regardless, you know they’re wrong. You’ve probably told your client he isn’t entitled to bond, and when the judge asked you for a bond amount, the client was probably grinning from ear to ear thinking it was his lucky day.
In a situation like that, the State Bar of Arizona would probably direct you to Ethics Rule 3.3, Candor Toward the Tribunal. Here it is:
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
Sure, it’s an important rule, but does it really apply? The constitution is legal authority, but is it directly adverse to the position of your client? Your client wants bond, obviously, but his position was that he couldn’t get it. The judge and the state are the ones who hold the position which is contrary to legal authority. Also, is arguing for bond a false statement of fact or law? Doesn’t the rule seem to only require you correct a false statement of material fact or law that you previously made to the tribunal?
Some of these questions are answered to some degree by ethics opinions, but I don’t think the answer is clear. How big of a factor is the way the judge words the question? Does merely asking for recommendations regarding bond give rise to a duty to tell the court your client isn’t entitled to it? What if the judge assumes the client gets bond and just asks you for an amount and a reason? What if he just asks you for an amount? Just a reason? Do you argue for the bond amount you know your client wants, or do you just throw out a number and say as little as possible? Is the way you word it going to make a difference? What if you say, “if the court is inclined to set a bond amount, X amount is appropriate for Y reasons?” Can you argue freely if you assume the court and prosecutor think proof is not evident or the presumption not great as to the present charge?
You can probably guess by now that I’m just going to ask questions here without really answering any of them. Every situation is different, so I don’t think there’s any single right answer. However, I think it’s fair to say any good criminal defense lawyer is going to keep his or her client’s interests in mind at all times while advocating for the clients within the boundaries of the ethical rules (duh). In the right situation, there are ways to argue for what your client wants.
One fascinating thing to me about what I’ve described is that I don’t recall law school professionalism ever covering a fact pattern where everyone was wrong but you. Maybe they thought learned judges and prosecutors didn’t make mistakes like that. If so, they’re wrong. Situations like the one I’ve described happen regularly. More often than most people think.
Because of that, it’s probably not a bad idea to figure out in advance how you’d react.
I Will Never Recommend These Lawyers to Anyone
Wednesday, January 21st, 2009Last week, I discovered one drawback of having some of my favorite blogs link to us. With the increase in traffic has come spam. Lots of it. Occasionally, an obvious spam comment slips past our filter, but it doesn’t bother me. I delete it, and life goes on. It normally involves male enhancement or someone willing to do something that’s illegal in the deep south.
It looks like some new lawyers have jumped into the fray. Taking a cue from viagra vendors, some scumbag attorneys have decided to spam my poor little blog. They put up stupid comments talking about how great they are and linking to their website. The spam comments were completely unrelated to the posts. I won’t provide a link, as it will just encourage them. If they’re attacking little-old-me with spam, they are probably big enough to have more visitors than I do. A small number of people will notice me complaining about their marketing practices, but my link will probably just make them look more important. I’m pretty sure it’s a losing fight, but please correct me if I’m wrong.
I’ve purposefully avoided discussing marketing here, as I don’t really have much to say on the subject. When I started this blog, this was my thought process: I like writing. I need an outlet to complain about the things that frustrate me and make me eager to get to work each day. I want to learn HTML and PHP in my spare time. Blogging seems like a good way to combine all of that, right? I vaguely thought it might somehow serve as a marketing tool and possibly bring in a client or two if the content was good enough.
Well, I turns out I’m bad at marketing. I doubt the firm has gotten a single client because of this blog. I haven’t learned HTML or PHP very well either (try using the search function on this blog). On the other hand, I’ve enjoyed blawging, and I think I’ve written some decent posts. Blawgers seem to be a fairly close-knit community, and I’ve had a good time meeting and communicating with other blawgers. I learned there are some things I didn’t think mattered that do matter (like giving your blog a promotional name), and things I did think mattered that don’t matter (for some reason, I thought it was common courtesy to ask someone before putting them on your blogroll). I think I’m pretty aware of blawging customs at this point.
What those spamming lawyers did is more than just against custom. I view it as tantamount to spray-painting the outside of my office building with their name and number. It wastes my time cleaning it up and tells me they are either unethical or too incompetent to properly supervise their staff. If it’s an ethics issue, I think it will self-correct. An attorney who trolls blogs and self-promotes with comments-spam is probably nearing the end of his or her legal career (or so I hope). If I were an inadvertnently-spamming lawyer, I’d still be worried about my state bar ethics committee if I didn’t address it ASAP. If my marketing guy went too far, I’d rein him in or fire him. It’s the only honorable thing to do.
I won’t pretend to be all high and mighty. I also won’t try to shame spammers in general, as plenty of far better blawgers have already done that. On principle, I’m not putting any links in this post. Check my blogroll for people with good things to say on the subject. All I have to say is the following for the sleazy attorneys who spammed me: if you messed up and hired a shady SEO guy, you should be prepared to apologize and fix the problem. If you’re so desperate for clients that you resorted to spamming other lawyers’ sites, you should probably focus more on the quality of your legal services. I didn’t appreciate taking the time to delete your irritating comments, and I bet you didn’t earn yourself a single client doing it. I think I’m not alone in saying that under no circumstances would I ever consider recommending you or your network to anyone.
Tags: comments, Ethics, firm, html, internet, kentucky, Marketing, php, Professionalism, seo, spam, viagra
Posted in Ethics, Marketing, Practice in General, Professionalism | 3 Comments »