UPDATE: I will start a new posting devoted just to Stewart, up above.
Internet connectively permitting, I will be live blogging the Lynne Stewart presentation at the Hofstra "Lawyering at the Edge" conference. Her talk is scheduled for 4:05 pm, ET.
Update: By coincidence, Richard Mauro, the current speaker, has flashed up on the screen his own booking photo. He was interviewing witnesses in a capital defense case when the local prosecutor decided to have him arrested for "witness tampering." The police report of his accuser unambiguously impeached the accusation to a degree like I've never seen before. Mauro was very impressive. It takes nerve to do capital defense and although that's not my calling I'm glad that guys like Mauro step forward. It appears to be a severe case of the government trying to "take out the opposition" rather than litigate on the merits.
UPDATE 2: Ron Kuby is up now. He starts with two hypos: one where you would have to lie to get yourself acquitted from a false accusation, and another where that would be true for your client. Kuby says that thinking about that helps you realize how desparate criminal clients are. You recognize the "spark of humanity" in that person.
Kuby says that if you decide to put on the lies, you have crossed the line. So, he says, you need to cross the line, if at all, intelligently and knowingly. To do that, you need to know what the lines are.
If you get a letter from the DA saying, "the witness doesn't want to talk to you," you should ignore the letter (and not bring it to the judge), because the DA doesn't rep the witness, and hence you don't know that you'd be violating the no-contact rule.
If your client proposes to structure paying you cash in several small payments, each of which is just below the limit for financial reporting. Answer: don't rep that client!
If you as a lawyer decide that an act is forbidden, don't decide whether to do it or not based upon some assessment of the probable consequences. [I think he meant "of the chance that the government will view your conduct in the future in the same way they tend to view that conduct today."]
You must understand how the government will view you; don't assume your self-vision will govern how you will be treated by the legal system.
The government rarely if ever frames a lawyer. "They" will misconstrue, misinterpret, etc., to get lawyers but Kuby hasn't seen pure fabrication of an entire claim against a lawyer.
"I'm not telling you that you should not break the law."
Moral people occasionally face the question of when to disobey immoral laws. If you reach that point, make your decisions knowingly and intelligently.
The fight for decency is perennial.
Said he personally won't lawyer under the new SAMs. Others will.
[My note: Kuby answered questions in a straight-up way. Very candid.]