That may be true, however the attorney is not free to state the reason for the withdrawal if it conveys any privileged communication (or lack of it thereof) or it can prejudice the client.
In this case, there was no "case" so there was no reason to submit any statement to the court. The representation in this case was purely advisory and ANY statement issued by the attorneys would have to be cleared by the client. In this case these lawyers have publicly prejudiced the interests of their client by revealing that they were not only withdrawing from the case, but that they were doing it because their client was either not following their advice or was not communicating with them.
These attorneys were not looking out for the welfare of their client, they were looking out for their own public image. The ETHICAL response to why they were withdrawing should have been "No Comment". Instead they publicly threw the blame on their client and left him hanging out to dry.
Non-communication is a privileged communication. The advice an attorney gives his client (such as "Don't talk to Hannity") is also a privileged communication. The fact that they revealed that their client was not taking their advice is as much a violation ethics as their revealing things he had told them.
BTW are you an attorney?
If so would you have done what these two did if your client did not follow your advice or was not actively communicating with you?
We've been handed an incredible opportunity here, boys.
See, this is the good part, boys. This is when the job gets fun! Ask... and you shall receive!
You play ball... we play ball. I knoowwww... you want the goodies!
Or... you can grow a conscience in the next five minutes and see where that takes you.
By the good grace of God I am not an attorney; however, I have worked with and for several over the past few decades and have some familiarity with professional responsibility. However, professional responsibility or “ethics” can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. What is OK in VA may not be acceptable in FL, and vice versa. In no jurisdiction is releasing ‘privileged’ information acceptable but I don’t see where the ‘privilege’ has been broached here.
You’ve put the cart before the horse re the advice you’re claiming these lawyers gave to Zimmerman. I.e., Hannity. They said they would have advised him not to ... not that they DID advise him, because he cut off communication with the lawyers before contacting Hannity AND the prosecutor. So that is taking as fact certain assumptions that are simply not true. And removes that from the ‘privilege’ which you’re claiming they violated.
How is their withdrawing and making public the reason “privileged communication (or lack of it thereof)?” What, exactly, is the ‘privilege’ that you’re claiming they’ve violated? An Article III court would insist that they give reasons and examples. But you would have them just walk away, quietly, from the loudest case in the public opinion court in which they’ve already made their appearance, and say “no comment?” They’ve been the contact point for Zimmerman with the public and the media? But, like Zimmerman, you’d have them disappear, leaving the public forum to Sharpton?
It’s not up to anyone except, perhaps, George Zimmerman to question the attorneys’ motive in stepping forward to represent him. Those who condemn them today thought them heroes when, in the face of the Sharpton/NAACP/MSM attacks, they stepped forward to take the unpopular position of defending George Zimmerman. I don’t know why they did it, nor does anyone else on this board. But if anyone was ‘left out to dry,’ it was these attorneys whose client cut off communication, then took it upon himself to contact a) Hannity and b) the prosecutor.
I really don’t care about these two attorneys, but I do hope Zimmerman gets his act together in short order and lines up attorneys with whom he will communicate, and not go off half-cocked as he’s done in the past few days.