Replies

"In an adversarial system, any lawyer who doesn't use all of the tools at his disposal to defend his client is guilty of malpractice."

Really? Let me pose a hypothetical civil case. Suppose your client is the CEO of a major firm accused of knowingly distributing defective products. You know the opposing side will present a witness who will testify that, while working for the company, saw a memo admiting the defects in the product. Now, you also know this witness has a history of mental disorders that may affect her memory. You also know she is telling the truth. (Yes, you really do know. Remember this is hypothetical.) Do you use this mental history to discredit her testimony? If not, are you guilty of malpractice?

Let me pose a hypothetical civil case. Suppose your client is the CEO of a major firm accused of knowingly distributing defective products. You know the opposing side will present a witness who will testify that, while working for the company, saw a memo admiting the defects in the product. Now, you also know this witness has a history of mental disorders that may affect her memory. You also know she is telling the truth. (Yes, you really do know. Remember this is hypothetical.) Do you use this mental history to discredit her testimony? If not, are you guilty of malpractice?

This is a fair question - I should note that I am not a lawyer although I do have friends that are and we often discuss issues like this. Well, the answer is that I don't know for sure but here's my take. I believe the main point is that in your hypothetical, since the lawyer "knows" that his client knowingly distributed defective products, he would not be allowed to present a defense saying that his client did not do so. So I believe that discrediting the testimony of a witness he "knows" to be telling the truth would not be allowed.

Clearly, the key element in this hypothetical is that the lawyer knows unquestionably that his client is guilty of what he is accused of and how he knows this. I don't think this happens in life all that much.

Would any of the real lawyers in this thread care to take a crack at this ?