FBI Top 10 Most Wanted Fugitive Arrested In Montreal

[EagerBeaver]

Lawyer client confidentiality stops where the lawyer begins advising his client how to break the law and get away with it.

Daydreamer,

Your posts don't seem to understand how things actually work between an attorney and client in reality. It usually consists of a client asking questions and an attorney answering questions. Usually, attorney are not dumb enough to be as indiscreet as suggested by your posts and that is simply not how the topic would come up anyway. Here is how it would occur:

Client: If I were not to appear in Court Monday, what would happen?

Attorney: You would be charged with failure to appear and perhaps unlawful flight from prosecution.

Client: As a matter of interest, fugitives who flee prosecution, where do they go?

Attorney: Portugal (or substitute name of country that is the current choice of attorneys who know more about this than I do).

Client: Why Portugal (or substitute country)?

Attorney: (gives legal reasons, as my friend did to me).

Clients usually don't say what they are going to do in a situation like this and this client didn't, and attorneys do not advise on a criminal course of conduct, and in this case the attorney didn't. Clients ask questions. Attorneys answer them. That is what we are paid to do. Your posts do not seem to get how it works in this regard. They seem to presume something that in most cases does not occur.

If there is no further contact between the client and attorney in this hypothetical and this client subsequently flees, the Attorney did nothing wrong nor is there anything he is required to disclose to the authorities, WHATSOEVER, PERIOD. If he did it would be a violation of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. And if the client said he would flee but did not indicate that he would harm anyone, the Attorney is under no duty of disclosure under the RPC. That is the law. Additionally, as a practical matter, I often find that clients never do what they say they will do and an Attorney is not required to guess or speculate as to whether a client will follow through on his assertions in these situations, UNLESS there is a threat by the client to kill or seriously harm someone.

And Daydreamer if you were practicing law for the past 15 years you would know that this is how most attorney client transactions go down. Your distorted view of how advice is given to clients, while perhaps a reality in your own mind, is not the reality of how things work in the real world.

 

[Esco!]

There is nothing in Rules of Professional Conduct that says a Lawyer is allowed to advise a client how to avoid capture for fleeing prosecution.

Lawyer client confidentiality stops where the lawyer begins advising his client how to break the law and get away with it.

And we all know lawyers are extremely ethical and would never break any Rules of Professional Conduct

 

[daydreamer41]

Daydreamer,
Client: If I were not to appear in Court Monday, what would happen?

Attorney: You would be charged with failure to appear and perhaps unlawful flight from prosecution.

Client: As a matter of interest, fugitives who flee prosecution, where do they go?

Attorney: Portugal (or substitute name of country that is the current choice of attorneys who know more about this than I do).

Client: Why Portugal (or substitute country)?

Attorney: (gives legal reasons, as my friend did to me).

Clients usually don't say what they are going to do in a situation like this and this client didn't, and attorneys do not advise on a criminal course of conduct, and in this case the attorney didn't. Clients ask questions. Attorneys answer them. That is what we are paid to do. Your posts do not seem to get how it works in this regard. They seem to presume something that in most cases does not occur.

If there is no further contact between the client and attorney in this hypothetical and this client subsequently flees, the Attorney did nothing wrong nor is there anything he is required to disclose to the authorities, WHATSOEVER, PERIOD. If he did it would be a violation of Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. And if the client said he would flee but did not indicate that he would harm anyone, the Attorney is under no duty of disclosure under the RPC. That is the law. Additionally, as a practical matter, I often find that clients never do what they say they will do and an Attorney is not required to guess or speculate as to whether a client will follow through on his assertions in these situations, UNLESS there is a threat by the client to kill or seriously harm someone.

And Daydreamer if you were practicing law for the past 15 years you would know that this is how most attorney client transactions go down. Your distorted view of how advice is given to clients, while perhaps a reality in your own mind, is not the reality of how things work in the real world.

There is one problem with your scenario. The lawyer is not saying anything about his conversation but what if the client does?

LE in country fugitive fled to: Why did you flee to Portugal? (or any country stupid lawyer suggests)

Fugitive, former client: Well my lawyer said you would not extradite me back to the US. That's a fact, isn't it? If my lawyer is wrong, I'll sue his ass off!

LE in country fugitive fled to: We may not extradite you. We will just take care of you here.

Fugitive, your former client: Huh? What do you mean by take care of me here.

LE in country fugitive fled to speaking to FBI in US: Who is this stupid lawyer this guy had that told him that he could find a safe place here?

You get my drift EB. It's not the Lawyer who will do the talking.

A lawyer telling a client where to flee is not really legal. Yeah, the lawyer will have confidentiality to the client, but the to be fugitive will not have any sworn confidentiality. And many stupid fugitives talk, or they wouldn't be fugitives. Plus, a man on the run is always dangerous. The line is crossed when you tell the client how to best break the law. Don't you think?

 

[EagerBeaver]

Daydreamer,

The scenario you are painting above is far fetched in the extreme. There is a bottom line, which is that attorneys get asked questions, they are paid to give answers, they don't always know (or want to know) what the clients will do with those answers, and this is how it pans out most of the time. Also clients are instructed about the attorney client privilege and once it is waived the lawyer is then free to defend himself without abusing the privilege. With dumb/untrustworthy clients you normally send disclaimer letters to cover your ass, making some of the things you are suggesting even more far fetched.

In any event this is way beyond the scope of my thread and I would suggest anyone else posting here confine their comments to the topic at hand which is the Goldberg capture.

 

[daydreamer41]

I think you missed my point EB. The smartest thing a lawyer can do for the client and for himself is to redirect the client to obeying the law. If a client were to seek advice on how to best break the law and get away with it, any responsible lawyer would redirect the client to obeying the law and avoid the question posed to him. Otherwise, one way or the other, it will come back to bite the lawyer in the rear end.

 

[EagerBeaver]

I think you missed my point EB. The smartest thing a lawyer can do for the client and for himself is to redirect the client to obeying the law. If a client were to seek advice on how to best break the law and get away with it, any responsible lawyer would redirect the client to obeying the law and avoid the question posed to him. Otherwise, one way or the other, it will come back to bite the lawyer in the rear end.

If you really believe this you would be a total failure as an attorney. Clients who don't get answers to their questions leave and go to attorneys who will answer them. If the client pays, you answer his question, and you then send him a letter instructing on the proper course of action. As I have said a hundred times, from your posts, you do not understand how the business works. I have been in this business a long time and I know how it works and most attorneys I know also "get it" and would never find themselves with the problems you suggest could occur. Only total doofuses would have such problems, and frankly there are not a whole lot of doofuses who get these kinds of cases.

Please comment on matter relevant to this thread. Thank you.

 

[metoo4]

EB is 200% right. Now back to thread...

Look like Canadian Federal Gov. will expell him, since he was in Canada illegally. That way, Canada doesn't need to worry about the validity of the US accusations of rape. It will be a kick in the ass and goodbye!
No way I want my tax money paying to keep him in jail in Canada. And with the term he'll be facing in USA, the jails are less fun, particularly for offenders of his kind...