'When I read this I thought of Gary Condit stopping a story re "intellectual property rights"........so he must be going to write a book, and Chandra if she is still alive, is out there writing a book and if she is, she will have a best seller.....intellectual property rights. So all these lawyers on TV giving opinions when they are not asked? Judges are supposed to render opinions and decisions.....but all these stories, "sources said" and then look at NBC and remember a smug DiGenoa smoking a cigar on TV smirking and smiling aimed for Clinton for this man had some information that at the time, was supposed to be held in secret? Well if I have an attorney the contract is betwee me and my lawyer and it works two ways....who the hell is the American Bar Association - they are a Labor Union for Lawyers where they price fix which is contrary to law, anti trust laws would it be, where they set rates and not all lawyers belong to the Bar Association for in fact, they are held in contempt by many. Read between the lines on this one - for these lawyers now when they get a good case, can get big bucks selling out their clients secrets to the press and news TV media in more "sources said" stories. First, let me say maybe Shakespeare was right when he wrote "First we will kill all the lawyers", but then who would defend the assassins, in a court of law? Is the lawyer contracting with the American Bar Association or does he contract with a client? Treason and Murder - only exceptions to the rules...anything else, is sub rosa. Saba August 8, 2001 Lawyers May Reveal Secrets of Clients, Bar Group Rules By JONATHAN D. GLATER Backers of an initiative to overhaul legal ethics rules, allowing lawyers more leeway to disclose client confidences to prevent fraud, injury or death, won a partial victory at the annual meeting of the American Bar Association in Chicago this week. The House of Delegates, the body that sets policy for the organization, voted 243 to 184 on Monday to approve a proposal allowing lawyers to disclose confidences when doing so prevents "reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm." But a proposal allowing lawyers to disclose financial fraud by a client if that client was using the lawyer's services to commit the fraud was defeated 255 to 151 yesterday. And its supporters, recognizing they did not have the votes, withdrew a similar proposal that also would have allowed disclosure of confidences under the same circumstances in order to mitigate a financial loss. Monday's change, the first update of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in nearly 20 years, is significant because it means that lawyers who may know of a defective product may now warn potential victims, lawyers said. The current rule allows disclosure only "to prevent the client from committing a criminal act that the lawyer believes is likely to result in imminent death or substantial bodily harm" � a more stringent requirement because it is limited to disclosure related to criminal actions by the client. "This is a great expansion in the freedom of lawyers to warn victims and persons in danger of substantial bodily harm or death, regardless of who's causing it," or whether it is imminent, said Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University School of Law. "That's important in a world of dangerous products, where you have exploding tires and cars that overturn." At the heart of the debate over the new rules is the balancing of lawyers' obligations to represent the interests of clients against a larger, societal good. Both sides agree that the privilege to protect client confidences is not absolute, but disagree about when it should be breached. "I'm satisfied that this is an appropriate balance," said Nancy J. Moore, a professor of legal ethics at Boston University Law School and a member of the commission that recommended the changes in disclosure rules. "You have situations in which a client leaves the lawyer's office brandishing a gun on his way to an ex-spouse," she said. "It's simply too harmful to refuse to permit lawyers to disclose in these situations." The delegates also backed a new rule that would prohibit a lawyer from having sex with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship predated the professional contact. The Model Rules are not binding on lawyers, whose conduct is regulated by the states, and the entire amended code is subject to approval by the House of Delegates, possibly at its next meeting in six months. State courts, which draft the rules of conduct, normally give great deference to the association, lawyers say. But on this issue, many states have already acted independently to broaden lawyers' discretion. In New York, for example, lawyers could reveal a client's intention to commit a crime, Professor Gillers said. "The New York rule is in some ways broader and in some ways narrower than what the A.B.A. is proposing," he said, because while it is not limited to violent crime, it allows disclosure only when it is the client who is about to commit the crime. Preserving client confidences is critically important in advocacy, many lawyers say, because without such confidences, clients might be reluctant to tell their lawyers everything relevant to representation. If a client withholds information from his lawyers, the argument goes, then it will be harder for the lawyers to effectively defend that client. "Clients need to know that when they come to an attorney and they seek environmental counsel or any type of legal counsel, that they're doing so under the protection of due process," said Peter Hsiao, a partner at Morrison & Foerster in Los Angeles. "That allows the free discussion between the client and the attorney that makes the process work." Companies might be more reluctant to discuss facts � such as environmental damage � when a lawyer might turn around and disclose them publicly, several lawyers said. The perverse result of the new rule in such a case would be a company's decision not to disclose at all. But Professor Moore said it was uncertain whether the rules would have that effect, adding, "When life and limb are at stake, it's better to err on the side of disclosure than nondisclosure." The new rule may make it more difficult for lawyers to figure out when they have an option to disclose and when they do not, Mr. Hsiao said. "Today I can look at the conduct and assess whether it would cause a criminal violation," he said. But deciding whether an action is reasonably likely to cause bodily injury, he said, may be more subjective. Albert C. Harvey, a member of the commission proposing the changes, dismissed that concern. " `Reasonably certain� is a concept that lawyers are familiar with and deal with all the time," he said. The issue of protection of client confidences also came up the last time that the American Bar Association overhauled its rules of professional conduct, in 1983. Since then, many states have adopted permissive disclosure rules, said Lester Brickman, a professor who teaches ethics at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. "A ll the A.B.A. is doing right now is playing catch-up," he said. Home | Back to National | Search | Help Back to Top Click Here to Receive 50% Off Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/08/national/08ETHI.html?todaysheadlines
