The Rule 1.6 debate waves the trust of attorney-client relationships as a badge of honor for the profession. It then authorizes and mandates a denial of justice to anyone who is affected by their inability to tell the truth.
Get this. It is unconstitutional, SO the lawyers must tell the truth to the court. The client must tell the truth to the court. So, if they are afraid of the truth being stated in court, they will lie and be exposed for their fraud.
Rule 1.6 is a ridiculous notion of integrity, ethics and morality which suggests that a LAW which requires an attorney to present untrue information to the court to obstruct the court from learning the truth, while compromising justice, integrity and personal reputation is designed to make a client trust his attorney.
The Client just watched the attorney lie to the Court. To think that builds trust is flawed logic.
We are really supposed to believe that a client will trust someone more because that person will lie for them AT ALL COSTS WITHOUT REGARD FOR ANYTHING OR ANYONE ELSE EVEN AT THE COST OF THEIR OWN INTEGRITY. THAT'S JUST STUPID. Shared lies do not build trust. The relationship is called a conspiracy and it is co-dependant at best. All the honor, truth and integrity synonyms in the world when presented to conceal a MANDATE TO MISLEAD will not result in TRUST.
The pig is still a pig.
Rule 1.6 prevents truth and encourages making every effort to mislead the court to further conceal a falsehood.
There is nothing admirable about telling a lie in a proceeding designed to determine the truth.
The other thing that just doesn't seem to make ANY appearance in any of the voluminous rhetoric surrounding The Rules of Professional Conduct.
(I have learned that what is not addressed or presented is often the baseline to consider.)
What about when the attorney is the one who initiates the untruth? When the attorney instructs the client to commit a crime? Their client can't risk exposing that to the court. The client needs the lawyer, AND THE CLIENT KNOWS THAT THE ATTORNEY WILL LIE TO THE COURT. If the lawyer will lie to the court, what kind of lies might he tell the court to retaliate against a client that exposes the lawyers fraud upon the court
The explanation for what necessitates the Confidentiality is a lie. And yes, it seems lawyers MUST do that.
They are telling you they are required to lie and will do so, what makes anyone believe that they are telling the truth?
No comments:
Post a Comment