I recall that as Joe DiMaggio was slipping in and out of a coma near the end of his life, his doctors held daily press briefings. DiMaggio unexpectedly revived and promptly told his doctors, angrily, to "shut up."
That anecdote came to mind as I read a news accounts of statements by lawyers for George Zimmerman, the Florida man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin. The news accounts attribute all sorts of statements to the lawyers, many of which make their client look bad. My advice to the lawyers: shut up, guys. Shut the h*** up. It's not about you. It's supposed to be about the client. And that's even before we get to the ethics rules on confidentiality. (Apologies for the strong language. I realize that Andy has already posted on this topic below, but I had already drafted and scheduled this post, so I decided to run it anyway.)
UPDATE: The new lawyer for Zimmerman made a public appearance and was far more appropriate in how he responded to media questions. The new lawyer, who criticized the prior lawyers, may have received Zimmerman's consent to speaking in public, but in any case the comments were tailored toward developing some public sympathy for Zimmerman and did not amount to negative admissions.
Spot-on: Should become a textbook illustration of improper behavior, indeed, both before we get to the rules and with regard to the rules. Were it that a reporter learned how to call a lawyer (or lawyers) out for such stuff at the news conference itself!
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | April 11, 2012 at 08:23 AM
One other thing: As someone who has given some thought to the question of the part played by "the ethical" outside the scope of professional ethics proper (although I've yet to publicly share them), it is quite disconcerting to see instances where even clear and simple rules of the profession are, apparently, so blatantly ignored and egregiously violated. You need not apologize for the strong language, as it's perfectly warranted in this case.
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | April 11, 2012 at 08:37 AM
I think that's right Patrick, and it's actually one of the reasons why I've always been a bit uncertain about the idea that what we really need is for lawyers to achieve a standard beyond the terms of the rules. As often as not simply following the rules could make a big difference to ethics (w.r.t. competence, for example).
Posted by: Alice Woolley | April 11, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Agreed. As a result of my work experiences, I've concluded that a lot of lawyers just aren't particularly self-reflective. Others could be, but are too busy to stop and reflect. Many are caught up in the heat of battle and their more reflective side shuts down. Some really are reflective, and find the time to reflect, but have concluded that the rules justifiably set the metes and bounds of the game. A few just aren't good people. In all those cases, the rules themselves have to do a lot of work.
To be clear: I agree with Andy that the former lawyers apparently crossed the line on confidentiality. By coincidence, I was presenting yesterday afternoon to criminal defense lawyers and we all agreed that Zimmerman's former lawyers had blown it.
Posted by: John Steele | April 11, 2012 at 11:38 AM
"Reckless lawyering" has become the modus operandi of most big law firms today. It's all about the money and "winning" by any means possible. Especially in civil law, few big law lawyers even stop to think about the truth of their client's requests to sue. Any allegation will do, any means to damage the opponent will do. Threats and phone calls to the opponent's business connections to force that opponent into financial distress, or to other lawyers to threaten them if they take the case, are unethical but cannot be "proven," since they are verbal. The lack of ethics in the legal profession at all levels today is destroying the rule of law, and judges are going along with it.
Posted by: anne smith | April 11, 2012 at 04:26 PM
I did hear something interesting on NPR about this. According to the reporter, Zimmerman had gone to Fox News and told them that these two were "not his lawyers" they were merely is "legal advisors." Which certainly implies that the client disclaimed the attorney-client relationship.
Although I do agree with you that the lawyers shouldn't be holding press conferences in any case.
Posted by: Judith_IP | April 11, 2012 at 08:41 PM
Judith_IP, thanks for that info.
Posted by: John Steele | April 12, 2012 at 12:03 AM