g2-6 lake pl. bodies

Upload: venkat-karthikeya

Post on 03-Apr-2018

218 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    1/22

    Ethics Case Analysis

    Lake Pleasant Bodies Case (A)

    Submitted By:

    Group #6

    March 2, 1999

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    2/22

    Background

    Attorney Frank Armani has been assigned by a district court in the State of New York to

    defend Robert Garrow, a convicted rapist and suspected child molester, for the murder of

    an eighteen year-old camper in the Adirondack Mountains near Lake Pleasant, New

    York. Mr. Armani had provided advice to Mr. Garrow on three previous occasions, a

    minor auto accident and a charge of unlawful imprisonment and possession of a

    dangerous drug, which were later dismissed. In addition, Mr. Armani had been retained

    by Garrow to defend him for allegedly molesting two young girls. Mr. Garrow never

    appeared for trial and shortly thereafter was identified as the murderer of the camper near

    Lake Pleasant.

    Investigators suspected that Garrow was also responsible for the murder of Daniel Porter

    and the disappearance of Susan Petz, two campers in the same area. Authorities believed

    that Susan Petz could still be alive and wanted Garrow to reveal her whereabouts.

    Garrow was finally located, and while being apprehended by police was shot several

    times. Before going into surgery, Garrow requested that Armani defend him on the

    murder charge and from that point forward refused to talk with anyone else.

    Armani was reluctant to accept the case because of Garrows background and his own

    lack of criminal defense experience; however, he felt an obligation to meet with Garrow

    in the hospital. The police asked Armani to let them know if Garrow revealed anything

    about Susan Petzs whereabouts. Garrow was unwilling to talk to Armani about any of

    the murders and denied killing anyone. Garrow did not have the resources to hire a

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    3/22

    private attorney. The court appointed Armani to defend Garrow because of their on-

    going relationship, despite Armanis lack of murder defense experience. Armani asked

    his friend Francis Belge, an experienced criminal defense attorney, to help in the defense

    of Garrow. Belge initially refused, but later agreed to be co-counsel.

    Garrow still refused to be forthcoming with information for his defense or to admit

    murdering anyone. Armani persuaded Garrow to submit to hypnosis, during which he

    planted suggestions that Garrow should cooperate fully during an afternoon interview.

    During the afternoon interview Garrow described killing a young lady named Alicia

    Hauck, as well as killing Porter and Petz. Garrow also described where he hid the bodies

    of Petz and Hauck. However, Garrow denied involvement in any other crimes, including

    the murder of the original camper for which he was being held.

    Belge and Armani confirmed Garrows story by locating Petzs body in an abandoned

    mine shaft. Belge later located Haucks body in the vicinity of where Garrow had

    described. Belge and Garrow believed they could not tell anyone of their findings

    because of the legal and ethical responsibilities involved in the attorney-client privilege.

    Susan Petzs father has now come to see Armani in an attempt to get information

    regarding the whereabouts of his daughter.

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    4/22

    Issues

    The primary ethical issue facing Frank Armani is whether or not to tell Susan Petzs

    father where his daughters body is located. Withholding the information from Mr. Petz

    would be a violation of Armanis personal ethics and emotions. Armani wants to give the

    Petz family closure regarding the welfare of their daughter. Armani feels empathetic

    toward the Petz family because his own parents suffered pain when his younger brother

    disappeared over the North Sea and the body was never recovered. Armani imagines

    how he would feel and that he would want to know the outcome if it were his daughter.

    However, by disclosing the location of the body, Armani would violate the attorney-

    client privilege and the ethical duty of confidentiality to his client.

    The attorney-client privilege is the oldest of the testimonial privileges protecting

    confidential communications (Internet 1). Generally the privilege covers legal advice,

    and guidance and communications between the lawyer and the client. While the privilege

    belongs to the client, it is the attorneys ethical responsibility to be the guardian of the

    clients privilege. In New York, where this case is located, the attorney-client privilege,

    which is codified in C.P.L.R. 4503, is broader in scope than the federal common-law

    standard in that the privilege applies when an attorneys communication is made to

    render legal advice or services to the client (Internet 2). The federal standard defines the

    privilege only for communication containing confidential client information.

    Canon 4 of the American Bar Association Model Code of Professional Responsibility

    provides that a lawyer should preserve the confidences and secrets of a client (Cannon

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    5/22

    95). Information that the client has requested be kept confidential or information that

    would be detrimental to the clients case are covered by this Code. The client must

    consent to the disclosure of the confidential or detrimental information.

    There are four conditions under which the Code allows confidentiality to be broken:

    Client Consent

    When Required by the Model Code, law, or court order

    To prevent the commission of a crime

    To establish or collect a fee or to defend against an accusation of wrongful conduct.

    Armani should consider these conditions when formulating his ethical and legal position

    on the issues.

    The essence of the privilege is that an attorney cannot give the best legal advice to the

    client without being fully informed of all the facts. A client may be reluctant to talk

    freely if there is fear that the attorney would disclose the information. As was ruled in

    Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 (1976), As a practical matter, if the client

    knows that damaging information could more readily be obtained from the attorney

    following disclosure than from himself in the absence of disclosure, the client would be

    reluctant to confide in his lawyer and it would be difficult to obtain fully informed legal

    advice.

    Ethical Theories

    There are several theories explaining the origin of ethics and moral standards. Positive

    law, natural law, moral relativism, and religious beliefs are among these theories

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    6/22

    (Jennings 41). Positive law states that ethical decisions are based upon whether or not a

    particular action is legal. If the action is legal, then it is ethical. Natural law is the theory

    that some universal code governs our behavior and that this code applies to everyone.

    Natural law does not consider whether the action is legal or not. A third way to assess

    ethics is to consider the situation. Moral relativism bases morality and ethics on the

    circumstances of a particular decision. For example, stealing may be ethically correct if

    the situation justifies the thievery. Finally, religious beliefs are a way to explain ethical

    and moral conduct. Writings such as the Bible and the Koran serve to guide many people

    in their decisions of right and wrong.

    The three most frequently used theories of ethical decision making are Egoism,

    Deontology, and Utilitarianism. Simply put, Ethical Egoism is the idea that we should

    always act selfishly (Internet 3). A true egoist does not believe in laws or moral codes,

    unless these laws and codes support the egoists self-interest. As described by John

    Beverley Robinson in his essay Egoism, egoism is the realization by the individual

    that he is above all institutions and all formulas; that they exist only so far as he chooses

    to make them his own by accepting them (Internet 4). If Frank Armani were an egoist,

    he would inform Daniel Petz of the location of Petzs daughter. The sole reason Armani

    would relate information about Petzs daughter is because Armani wants to tell Petz.

    This decision is purely selfish and is made irrespective of the ethical code of his

    profession.

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    7/22

    Deontology is the belief that the rightness and wrongness of actions does not depend

    entirely on considerations of goodness (Internet 5). Instead, decisions are made based

    on the individuals personal moral code. This moral code may or may not be based on

    generally accepted principles of law and ethics. Under deontology, an individual would

    always make the same decision in all situations. The decision would be based on a sense

    of obligation (Internet 6). If Frank Armani were a deontologist, he would most likely

    inform Petz as to the location of Petzs missing daughter. Armani would ignore the

    ethical code of his profession and would follow his own personal moral code.

    Considering that Armani had a brother who was missing in action in Asia, he can

    empathize with the suffering that Mr. Petz is experiencing. This empathy would drive

    Armanis moral decision to tell.

    The final theory to be discussed is Utilitarianism. This theory emphasizes happiness-

    producing consequences (Internet 6). Behaviors that produce happiness for the majority

    are supported. A subset of utilitarianism, called Rule Utilitarianism, states that if a

    small and simple set of rules are followed by everyone, then the maximum benefit would

    insue in the long run (Internet 6). Ethical codes of conduct, such as those of the New

    York State Bar Association, serve to enforce rule utilitarianism. Therefore, under this

    doctrine, Armani would not disclose any information to Mr. Petz. Instead, Armani would

    uphold the standards of attorney-client privilege and confidentiality.

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    8/22

    Alternatives and Consequences

    Armani has two primary alternatives: to tell Mr. Petz where his daughter can be found or

    to uphold the legal rule of attorney-client privilege and the ethical rule of confidentiality.

    Both of these alternatives have positive and negative consequences affecting Armani,

    Garrow, Belge, the Petz family, the Lake Pleasant community, and the legal system as a

    whole.

    Scenario 1

    Mr. Armani divulges the whereabouts and condition of Susan Petz to her father. By

    choosing this alternative Armani knowingly and deliberately violates the legal and ethical

    rules of attorney-client privilege and confidentiality; however, there are considerable

    positive consequences to taking this course of action. Although the news may be

    horrifying to Mr. Petz, at least he knows what has happened to his daughter and can take

    appropriate action to have her properly buried and begin the mourning process. In

    addition, the police and the local Lake Pleasant community can discontinue the search for

    Susan Petz, saving valuable time and community resources. Armani feels good on a

    personal level as a father, because he would have wanted information if it had been his

    daughter. Lastly, a positive aspect for the community is that Garrow could be charged

    with the murder of Susan Petz and possibly convicted.

    By choosing to tell Mr. Petz the whereabouts of his daughter, Armani risks substantial

    negative consequences on a personal level, as well as on a legal and social level. By

    violating the rules of attorney-client privilege and confidentiality Armani is likely to

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    9/22

    receive sanctions from the Bar Association, with the possibility of being disbarred,

    thereby ending his career as an attorney. In addition, his law firm may be negatively

    impacted by the turmoil experienced while Armani is under review by the legal system.

    The firm may lose business because potential clients will question whether their

    confidential information and communications will be respected. Not only is Armanis

    firm affected, but so is Mr. Belge who specifically counseled Armani against divulging

    the information. Belge may also lose business through his association with Armani as

    co-counsel. Therefore, not only does Armani risk losing his own career, his actions could

    affect the careers of his colleagues.

    Garrow and the legal system could suffer additional negative impacts. On one hand,

    Garrows rights would be violated and he would most likely be charged with the murder

    of Susan Petz. On the other hand, it is also possible that Garrow could be acquitted of the

    murder or he could receive a mistrial due to the improper disclosure and faulty legal

    representation by Armani. If Garrow was also acquitted of the murder of the first

    camper, he could possibly go free, which would have the greatest negative impact on the

    community.

    Scenario 2

    Mr. Armani does not divulge the confidential information learned from Garrow. As

    under Scenario 1, there are both negative and positive consequences if Armani decides to

    abide by the rules of attorney-client privilege and confidentiality. Obviously, Mr. Petz is

    negatively affected by Armanis decision to withhold the information regarding his

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    10/22

    daughter. Mr. Petz will continue to wonder whether his daughter is alive or dead and the

    Lake Pleasant community will continue to expend considerable resources to search for

    Susan Petz. Another negative effect is the personal impact on Armani. He must fight the

    personal urge to divulge the information, which seems to go against his moral standards.

    Armani may feel extreme guilt regarding his decision. In addition, it is likely that the

    community would react negatively against Armani if they were to find out he withheld

    the information.

    There are several positive results if Armani chooses not to tell Mr. Petz the information

    regarding his daughter. Individually, Armani is unlikely to face sanctions from the legal

    community and he preserves his relationships with his law firm and Belge. More

    importantly, Armani upholds the ethical and legal standards of the legal profession by

    preserving the attorney-client privilege and rules of confidentiality. Garrow has the right

    to counsel and due process, both of which would be compromised if Armani were to

    violate Garrows confidence.

    Conclusion/Recommendation

    The recommendation is that Frank Armani follow the Utilitarian theory of ethical

    decision making and maintain his clients confidentiality for the greater good of society.

    Therefore, Armani will not reveal any information that violates the attorney-client

    privilege. With the assistance of his co-council Frank Belge, Armani is familiar with the

    canons of the New York State Bar Association Code of Professional Responsibility (see

    Appendix A). Canon 4 of the code: A Lawyer Should Preserve the Confidences and

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    11/22

    Secrets of a Client, clearly states that informing the families would be a violation of

    Disciplinary Rule (DR) 4-101 [1200.19]. For personal reasons, it will be very difficult

    for Armani not to ease the minds of the Petz family. However, his solace is the

    preservation of the U.S. criminal justice system and the balance and safety it instills in

    our society. The first line of the aforementioned code states: The continued existence of

    the free and democratic society depends upon recognition of the concept that justice is

    based upon the rule of law grounded in respect for the dignity of the individual and the

    capacity of the individual through reason for enlightened self-government (Internet 7).

    Armani must support the justice system and uphold the code.

    Canon 4 of the code outlines the rights of the client to privacy, and this right is automatic.

    The lawyer must get the client to waive the right to allow disclosure. The lawyer cannot

    disclose information without the clients consent. According to the utilitarian theory of

    ethics, convincing the client to provide the information about the crimes will support the

    greater good of all: the family of the victim, the criminal justice system, and the client

    himself. Armani should try to convince his client to allow the disclosure of the location

    of the bodies. Armani has two arguments to help persuade his client to disclose this

    information: 1) to reinforce the insanity defense, and 2) to assist in potential plea-

    bargains. In addition by Garrow disclosing the information, Armani would be able to

    uphold the Bar Association Code of ethics.

    Armani had a legitimate need to find out all of the details of his clients crimes.

    Although he utilized questionable ethics by planting suggestions to obtain more

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    12/22

    information while Garrow was under hypnosis, Armani was mounting an insanity defense

    that could be bolstered with details of additional crimes. In order to support that defense,

    according to the criminal procedure laws in New York, Armani must fulfill the

    requirements of Article 730 of the New York State Criminal Procedure by submitting a

    report outlining the symptoms and condition of his client. Establishing the demented

    pattern of destruction that Garrow was following would support this defense.

    It is also a possibility that the plea-bargain process could be influenced with information

    about the victim. While it is clear that Robert Garrow should be removed from society, it

    is the duty of the lawyer to create the best possible defense for his client. In return for

    information about Susan Petz, the district attorney might be more inclined to accept the

    insanity plea. If Garrow is found to have had a mental disease or defect at the time of the

    murders, he could possibly avoid life imprisonment or the death penalty, and be released

    at a future time if found to be cured.

    It is Armanis duty as a lawyer in the state of New York to uphold the New York Bar

    Association Code. The one exception to the attorney-client privilege that applies in this

    case is the knowledge of the intent of a client to commit a crime. If Garrow testifies

    under oath that he did not kill Susan Petz, he will commit perjury. The seventh canon of

    the Code: A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Zealously Within the Bounds of the Law,

    clearly states that if the client commits a fraud, the lawyer should reveal the fraud to the

    affected person or tribunal. Armani can use this argument to persuade Robert Garrow to

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    13/22

    provide information about the crimes. However, this argument is moot if Garrow does

    not take the stand and testify.

    The Lake Pleasant Bodies Case is a complex study of one of the most important ethical

    issues facing attorneys whether to maintain the attorney-client privilege of a guilty

    client, even when the attorney has information that would assist the injured party in the

    case. By following the tenants of Utilitarianism, and specifically Rule Utilitarianism,

    Frank Armani would uphold the professional code of ethics and maintain his clients

    confidentiality. In the long run, this practice benefits society as a whole by maintaining

    the integrity of a critical component of the United States justice system.

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    14/22

    BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Cannon, Therese A. Ethics and Professional Responsibility for Legal Assistants.

    Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1992.

    Jennings, Marianne. Business: Its Legal, Ethical and Global Environment. Cincinnati:

    South-Western College Publishing Co., 1997.

    West, Ellen. The Lake Pleasant Bodies Case (A). Boston: Harvard Business School,

    1990.

    Internet 1 Chapter 1; The Attorney-Client Privilege [Online]. Available:

    www.abanet.org/abapubs/5310215chap.html [1999, February 21].

    Internet 2 Buzzetta, Daniel J. (1998, August 26). Sizing Up the Variable Scope of

    Attorney-Client Privilege [Online]. Available:

    (ljextra.com/practice/professionalresponsibility/0826acp.html) [1999, February

    26].

    Internet 3 Two Types of Egoism [Online]. Available:

    http://ethics.acusd.edu/seattle/egoism/tsld003.htm [1999, February 23].

    Internet 4 Robinson, John Beverley (No date). Egoism [Online]. Available:

    http://pierce.ee.washington.edu/~davisd/egoist/articles/Egoism.Robinson.html

    [1999, February 23].

    Internet 5 Hubin, Donald C. (1998).Normative Ethical Theories [Online]. Available:

    http://philosophy.ohio-

    state.edu/people/donh/phil130/NormativeEthicalTheories/sld001.htm [1999,

    February 23].

    http://www.abanet.org/abapubs/5310215chap.htmlhttp://ethics.acusd.edu/seattle/egoism/tsld003.htmhttp://philosophy.ohio-state.edu/people/donh/phil130/NormativeEthicalTheories/sld001.htmhttp://philosophy.ohio-state.edu/people/donh/phil130/NormativeEthicalTheories/sld001.htmhttp://www.abanet.org/abapubs/5310215chap.htmlhttp://ethics.acusd.edu/seattle/egoism/tsld003.htmhttp://philosophy.ohio-state.edu/people/donh/phil130/NormativeEthicalTheories/sld001.htmhttp://philosophy.ohio-state.edu/people/donh/phil130/NormativeEthicalTheories/sld001.htm
  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    15/22

    Internet 6 A Discussion of Deontological and Consequentialist Frameworks [Online].

    Available: http://www.princeton.edu/~kenlee/pub/cs291week5.html [1999,

    February 20].

    Internet 7 TheNew York State Bar Association Code of Professional Responsibility

    [ Online]. Available: http://www.nysba.org/opinions/codes/anchor1.html [1999,

    February 26].

    http://www.princeton.edu/~kenlee/pub/cs291week5.htmlhttp://www.nysba.org/opinions/codes/anchor1.htmlhttp://www.princeton.edu/~kenlee/pub/cs291week5.htmlhttp://www.nysba.org/opinions/codes/anchor1.html
  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    16/22

    Appendix A

    Excerpts from the New York State Bar

    Association Code of Professional

    Responsibility

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    17/22

    Appendix A: Excerpts from The New York State Bar Association

    Code of Professional Responsibility

    Adopted by the New York State Bar Association Effective January 1, 1970

    As Amended Effective May 22, 1996

    Table of Contents

    * PREAMBLE

    * DEFINITIONS* [1200.1]**

    * CANON 1 A Lawyer Should Assist in Maintaining the Integrity

    and Competence of the Legal Profession

    o Ethical considerations

    o Disciplinary rules

    CANON 2 A Lawyer Should Assist the Legal Profession in

    Fulfilling Its Duty to Make Legal Counsel Available

    o Ethical considerations

    o Disciplinary rules

    CANON 3 A Lawyer Should Assist in Preventing the

    Unauthorized Practice of Lawo Ethical considerations

    o Disciplinary rules

    CANON 4 A Lawyer Should Preserve the Confidences and Secrets

    of a Client

    o Ethical considerations

    o Disciplinary rules

    CANON 5 A Lawyer Should Exercise Independent Professional

    Judgment on Behalf of a Client

    o Ethical considerations

    o Disciplinary rules

    CANON 6 A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Competently

    o Ethical considerations

    o Disciplinary rules

    CANON 7 A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Zealously Within

    the Bounds of the Law

    o Ethical considerations

    o Disciplinary rules

    CANON 8 A Lawyer Should Assist in Improving the Legal System

    o Ethical considerations

    o Disciplinary rules

    CANON 9 A Lawyer Should Avoid Even the Appearance ofProfessional Impropriety

    o Ethical considerations

    o Disciplinary rules

    o Advice on Ethical Questions

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    18/22

    CANON 4: A Lawyer Should Preserve the Confidences and Secrets of a

    Client

    ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

    * EC 4-1 Both the fiduciary relationship existing between lawyer and

    client and the proper functioning of the legal system require the

    preservation by the lawyer of confidences and secrets of one who

    has employed or sought to employ the lawyer. A client must feel

    free to discuss anything with his or her lawyer and a lawyer must

    be equally free to obtain information beyond that volunteered by

    the client. A lawyer should be fully informed of all the facts of

    the matter being handled in order for the client to obtain the

    full advantage of our legal system. It is for the lawyer in the

    exercise of independent professional judgment to separate the

    relevant and important from the irrelevant and unimportant. The

    observance of the ethical obligation of a lawyer to hold

    inviolate the confidences and secrets of a client not only

    facilitates the full development of f acts essential to

    proper representation of the client but also encourages non-

    lawyers to seek early legal assistance.* EC 4-2 The obligation to protect confidences and secrets obviously

    does not preclude a lawyer from revealing information when the

    client consents after full disclosure, when necessary to perform

    the lawyer's professional employment, when permitted by a

    Disciplinary Rule, or when required by law. Unless the client

    otherwise directs, a lawyer may disclose the affairs of the

    client to partners or associates of his or her firm. It is a

    matter of common knowledge that the normal operation of a law

    office exposes confidential professional information to non-

    lawyer employees of the office, particularly secretaries and

    those having access to the files; and this obligates a lawyer to

    exercise care in selecting and training employees so that the

    sanctity of all confidences and secrets of clients may be

    preserved. If the obligation extends to two or more clients as to

    the same information, a lawyer should obtain the permission of

    all before revealing the information. A lawyer must always be

    sensitive to the rights and wishes of the client and act

    scrupulously in the making of decisions which may involve the

    disclosure of information obtained in the professional

    relationship. Thus, in the absence of consent of the client after

    full disclosure, a lawyer should not associate another lawyer in

    the handling of a matter; nor should the lawyer, in the absence

    of consent, seek counsel from another lawyer if there is a reason

    able possibility that the identity of the client or the client's

    confidences or secrets would be revealed to such lawyer. Both

    social amenities and professional duty should cause a lawyer to

    shun indiscreet conversations concerning clients.* EC 4-3 Unless the client otherwise directs, it is not improper for a

    lawyer to give limited information to an outside agency necessary

    for statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data processing,

    banking, printing, or other legitimate purposes, provided the

    lawyer exercises due care in the selection of the agency and warns

    the agency that the information must be kept confidential.

    * EC 4-4 The attorney-client privilege is more limited than the ethical

    obligation of a lawyer to guard the confidences and secrets of the

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    19/22

    client. This ethical precept, unlike the evidentiary privilege,

    exists without regard to the nature or source of information or

    the fact that others share the knowledge. A lawyer should

    endeavor to act in a manner which preserves the evidentiary

    privilege; for example, the lawyer should avoid professional

    discussions in the presence of persons to whom the privilege does

    not extend. A lawyer owes an obligation to advise the client of

    the attorney-client privilege and timely to assert the privilege

    unless it is waived by the client.

    * EC 4-5 A lawyer should not use information acquired in the course of

    the representation of a client to the disadvantage of the client

    and a lawyer should not use, except with the consent of the client

    after full disclosure, such information for the lawyer's own

    purposes. Likewise, a lawyer should be diligent in his or her

    efforts to prevent the misuse of such information by employees an

    d associates. Care should be exercised by a lawyer to prevent the

    disclosure of the confidences and secrets of one client to

    another, and no employment should b e accepted that might require

    such disclosure.

    * EC 4-6 The obligation to protect confidences and secrets of a client

    continues after the termination of employment. A lawyer shouldalso provide for the protection of the confidences and secrets of

    the client following the termination of the practice of the

    lawyer, whether termination is due to death, disability, or

    retirement. For example, a lawyer might provide for the personal

    papers of the client to be returned to the client and for the

    papers of the lawyer to be delivered to another lawyer or to be

    destroyed. In determining the method of disposition, the

    instructions and wishes of the client should be a dominant

    consideration.

    * EC 4-7 The lawyer's exercise of discretion to disclose

    confidences and secrets requires consideration of a wide range of

    factors and should not be subject to reexamination. A lawyer is

    afforded the professional discretion to reveal the intention of a

    client to commit a crime and the information necessary to prevent

    the crime and cannot be subjected to discipline either for

    revealing or not revealing such intention or information. In

    exercising this discretion, however, the lawyer should consider

    such factors as the seriousness of the potential injury to others

    if the prospective crime is committed, the likelihood that it will

    be committed and its imminence, the apparent absence of any other

    feasible way in which the potential injury can be prevented, the

    extent to which the client may have attempted to involve the

    lawyer in the prospective crime, the circumstances under

    which the lawyer acquired the information of the client's intent,

    and any other possibly aggravating or extenuating circumstances.

    In any case, a disclosure adverse to the client's interest should

    be no greater than the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to thepurpose.

    DISCIPLINARY RULES

    DR 4-101 [1200.19] Preservation of Confidences and Secrets of a Client

    A. "Confidence" refers to information protected by the attorney-client

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    20/22

    privilege under applicable law, and "secret" refers to other

    information gained in the professional relationship that the client has

    requested be held inviolate o r the disclosure of which would be

    embarrassing or would be likely to be detrimental to the client.

    B. Except when permitted under DR 4-101 [1200.19] (C), a lawyer shall

    not knowingly:

    1. Reveal a confidence or secret of a client.

    2. Use a confidence or secret of a client to the

    disadvantage of the client.

    3. Use a confidence or secret of a client for the

    advantage of the lawyer or of a third person, unless

    the client consents after full

    C. A lawyer may reveal:

    l. Confidences or secrets with the consent of the

    client or clients affected, but only after a fulldisclosure to them.

    2. Confidences or secrets when permitted under

    Disciplinary Rules or required by law or court order.

    3. The intention of a client to commit a crime and the

    information necessary to prevent the crime.

    4. Confidences or secrets necessary to establish or

    collect the lawyer's fee or to defend the lawyer or his

    or her employees or associates against an accusation

    of wrongful conduct.

    5. Confidences or secrets to the extent implicit in

    withdrawing a written or oral opinion or

    representation previously given by the lawyer and

    believed by the lawyer still to be relied upon by a

    third person where the lawyer has discovered that the

    opinion or representation was based on materially

    inaccurate in formation or is being used to further a

    crime or fraud.

    D. A lawyer shall exercise reasonable care to prevent his or her

    employees, associates, and others whose services are utilized by the

    lawyer from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of a client,

    except that a lawyer may reveal the information allowed by DR 4-

    101[1200.19](C) through an employee.

    CANON 7: A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Zealously Within the Bounds

    of the Law

    DISCIPLINARY RULES

    DR 7-101 [1200.32] Representing a Client Zealously.

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    21/22

    A. A lawyer shall not intentionally:

    1. Fail to seek the lawful objectives of the client through

    reasonably available means permitted by law and the

    Disciplinary Rules, except as provided by DR 7-101 [1200.32]

    (B). A lawyer does not violate this Disciplinary Rule,

    however, by acceding to reasonable requests of opposing

    counsel which do not prejudice the rights of the client, by

    being punctual in fulfilling all professional commitments,

    by avoiding offensive tactics, or by treating with courtesy

    and consideration all persons involved in the legal process.

    2. Fail to carry out a contract of employment entered into with

    a client for professional services, but the lawyer may

    withdraw as permitted under DR 2-110 [1200.15], DR 5-102

    [1200.21], and DR 5-105 [1200.24].

    3. Prejudice or damage the client during the course of the

    professional relationship, except as required under DR 7-102

    [1200.33] (B).

    B. In the representation of a client, a lawyer may:

    1. Where permissible, exercise professional judgment to waive

    or fail to assert a right or position of the client.

    2. Refuse to aid or participate in conduct that the lawyer

    believes to be unlawful, even though there is some support

    for an argument that the conduct is legal.

    DR 7-102 [1200.33] Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law.

    A. In the representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:

    1. File a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a

    trial, or take other action on behalf of the client when the

    lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would

    serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.

    2. Knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted

    under existing law, except that the lawyer may advance such

    claim or defense if it can be supported by good faith

    argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of

    existing law.

    3. Conceal or knowingly fail to disclose that which the lawyer

    is required by law to reveal.

    4. Knowingly use perjured testimony or false evidence.

    5. Knowingly make a false statement of law or fact.

    6. Participate in the creation or preservation of evidence when

    the lawyer knows or it is obvious that the evidence is

    false.7. Counsel or assist the client in conduct that the lawyer

    knows to be illegal or fraudulent.

    8. Knowingly engage in other illegal conduct or conduct

    contrary to a Disciplinary Rule.

    B. A lawyer who receives information clearly establishing that:

    1. The client has, in the course of the representation,

    perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal shall promptly

  • 7/29/2019 G2-6 Lake Pl. Bodies

    22/22

    call upon the client to rectify the same, and if the client

    refuses or is unable to do so, the lawyer shall reveal the

    fraud to the affected person or tribunal, except when the

    information is protected as a confidence or secret.

    2. A person other than the client has perpetrated a fraud upon

    a tribunal shall promptly reveal the fraud to the tribunal.

    DR 7-103 [1200.34] Performing the Duty of Public Prosecutor or Other

    Government Lawyer.

    A. A public prosecutor or other government lawyer shall not institute

    or cause to be instituted criminal charges when he or she knows or it

    is obvious that the charges are not supported by probable cause.

    B. A public prosecutor or other government lawyer in criminal

    litigation shall make timely disclosure to counsel for the defendant,

    or to a defendant who has no counsel, of the existence of evidence,

    known to the prosecutor or other government lawyer, that tends to

    negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the degree of the offense or

    reduce the punishment.

    Copyright (c)1996, New York State Bar Association. All rights

    reserved. The NYSBA logo is a trademark of the New York State Bar

    Association.