Resources for PR Teachers

« "NY’s New Pro Bono Requirement Discriminates Against Solos And is Unfair to New Lawyers" | Main | "Web put off-limits to Social Security claims judges" »

May 02, 2012

Comments

paulbkk

re odds and ends

I would be interested in your take on a recent Daily Kos post concerning legal ethics of corporate counsel:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/01/1087784/-Where-were-the-lawyers-

John Steele

paulbkk,

thanks for commenting. your posting at Daily Kos is a concise and provocative piece -- but for that reason it's hard for me to respond in specifics. as for the state bars, many people think that they have just enough resources to pursue lawyers who steal from clients and commit easy-to-prove offenses. proving up the role of lawyers in something as complex as the mortgage-backed-securities scandals isn't easy to do. i'm not defending that inability so much as i'm describing it.

as for the role of lawyers as key enablers of all the matters you list, it takes a far more detailed theory of their role for me (or state bar regulators) to assess the lawyers' complicity.

you are correct that if the client's intent in meeting with lawyers is to further a crime or fraud then the communication is not privileged. you're wrong, though, in suggesting that lawyers generally have a duty to report clients to the authorities. that is rarely the case.

paulbkk

Mr Steele,

thank you, I will update the post at Daily Kos to correct my mistake about the duty to report. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe Share/Bookmark

Site Statistics