My SO is also a lawyer. I tell her anything that I can ethically disclose - she does the same. I have a patent prosecution practice, so I cannot really talk about my clients' inventions until the patent is filed and the client makes a public disclosure on their own.
But Rule 1.6 makes no exceptions for table talk–or pillow talk–with spouses or significant others. What can you not tell a lawyer? 8 Things Most Lawyers Won’t Tell You. Pay Your Attorney As You Have Agreed To. … Tell the Truth. … Dress Appropriately. … Things Can Take a Long Time. … People Rely on More than Just the Law to Make ...
The attorney-client privilege is a rule that preserves the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and clients. Under that rule, attorneys may not divulge their clients' secrets, nor may others force them to. The purpose of the privilege is to encourage clients ...
Example: In a civil suit regarding allegedly stolen funds, the judge orders the defense to turn over to the plaintiff documentation of conversations between the defendant and his attorney. The defense argues that the attorney-client privilege applies, and that the documents are protected. But the documents relate to plans between ...
The Client's Privilege. Generally, the attorney-client privilege applies when: an actual or potential client communicates with a lawyer regarding legal advice. the lawyer is acting in a professional capacity (rather than, for example, as a friend), and. the client intended the communications to be private and acted accordingly.
The duty of confidentiality prevents lawyers from even informally discussing information related to their clients' cases with others. They must keep private almost all information related to representation of the client, even if that information didn't come from the client.
If, for example, if a client tells his lawyer that he robbed a bank or lied about assets during a divorce, the lawyer probably can't disclose the information.
Under that rule, attorneys may not divulge their clients' secrets, nor may others force them to. The purpose of the privilege is to encourage clients to openly share information with their lawyers and to let lawyers provide effective representation.
Preliminary communications between a potential client and a lawyer are normally subject to the attorney-client privilege. That means that lawyers can't disclose what prospective clients reveal in confidence even if the lawyers never ends up representing them. ( In re Auclair, 961 F.2d 65 (5th Cir. 1992).) To be sure, though, you should confirm with a prospective lawyer that the privilege applies before you reveal anything you want to keep secret.
That doesn't mean, however, that you have to follow the attorney's instruction. The Constitution does not forbid you to talk to a person just because that person has an attorney, or just because the attorney tells you not to do it.
A criminal suspect's lawyer is only doing his job when he calls you during your investigation or after his client's arrest and "instructs" you not to discuss the case with his client unless the lawyer is present. That doesn't mean, however, that you have to follow the attorney's instruction. The Constitution does not forbid you to talk ...
Although neither Miranda nor the Sixth Amendment right to counsel prohibits police interrogation of a willing suspect merely because his attorney has informed police his or her client is not to be questioned, some jurisdictions may have statutory rules restricting such contacts. Officers should consult local prosecutors or legal advisers to determine the existence and application of any such statutes.
Said the court, "The defendant may waive the Sixth Amendment right, whether or not he is already represented by counsel; the decision to waive need not itself be counseled. And when a defendant is read his Miranda rights and agrees to waive those rights, that typically does the trick.". (Montejo v. Louisiana)
Instead, the law focuses on whether the suspect is willing to talk without his or her attorney present. Although this is a well established principle dating back at least a quarter of a century, some officers and attorneys (and some judges) still experience uncertainty and nervousness about police interrogation of a represented suspect.
In another case, the Supreme Court held that even after a suspect is arrested and has been arraigned and has counsel appointed, he can still be approached by police, in the absence of counsel and without any notice to counsel, to see if he is willing to discuss the case.
Police did not tell the lawyer that Burbine was suspected in the Providence murder, or that he was about to be questioned in that case. They also did not tell Burbine a lawyer had phoned on his behalf. Instead, Providence officers gave Burbine a Miranda warning, obtained his waiver, and conducted an interrogation, ...
The most basic principle underlying the lawyer-client relationship is that lawyer-client communications are privileged, or confidential. This means that lawyers cannot reveal clients' oral or written statements (nor lawyers' own statements to clients) to anyone, including prosecutors, employers, friends, or family members, ...
Example: Benny Wilson is charged with possession of stolen merchandise. The day after discussing the case with his lawyer, Benny discusses it with a neighbor. As long as Benny does not say something to his neighbor like, "Here's what I told my lawyer yesterday…," the attorney-client communications remain confidential.
Heidi tells her lawyer that the drugs belonged to her , and that she bought them for the first time during a period of great stress in her life, just after she lost her job. Heidi authorizes her lawyer to reveal this information to the D.A., hoping to achieve a favorable plea bargain.
Defendants who bring strangers (people who are not part of the attorney-client relationship) into a meeting risk losing the right to claim that the meeting was confidential. This means that the D.A. might be able to ask the stranger or even the defendant about what was said during the meeting.
For perfectly understandable reasons, defendants sometimes want their parents, spouses, or friends to be present when they consult with their lawyers. Does that mean that the conversation won't be considered confidential?
If a jailer monitors a phone call and overhears a prisoner make a damaging admission to the prisoner's lawyer, the jailer can probably testify to the defendant's statement in court.
Can they testify to what you said? Yes. Lawyer-client communications are confidential only if they are made in a context where it would be reasonable to expect that they would remain confidential. ( Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967).) A defendant who talks to a lawyer in such a loud voice that others overhear what is said has no reasonable expectation of privacy and thus waives (gives up) the privilege. Similarly, people who talk about their cases on cell phones in public places risk losing confidentiality.
It’s common practice, and often mutually beneficial, for lawyers to ask certain clients to let them share some information on past cases for limited advertisement purposes.
Yelling at a person whose life is in chaos isn’t helpful and it certainly isn’t going to help your working relationship with them. Not all lawyers are able to separate their emotions from their clients’ emotions. This is why drug use, drinking, gambling and other damaging addictions are so prevalent in lawyers.
Many lawyers tell “war stories” meaning we talk about past experiences we have had representing clients. And we are al
On the defense side, the new attorney may incur additional costs coming up to speed and potentially re-doing work already done or not using the work already done because a different strategy is being chosen. Before discharging your lawyer, take the time to examine costs of doing so.
I suppose you mean, without getting the client’s permission. The ethical rules of most states would probably allow this as long as the identity of the client was genuinely masked, not merely not identifying the client specifically, but not giving identifying information from which the client’s identity could be guessed. It is a tricky area though.
Some lawyers include a clause in their contracts saying that they may discuss the client’s case with a third lawyer at no expense to the client, and explain to the client what that means, giving the client the opportunity to reject the clause.
In the real word, clients are often advised by their attorneys not to speak to certain people, like opposing parties or potential witnesses, and if an attorney knows a person is represented by an attorney, the rules of legal ethics forbid speaking to that person without the permission of the other attorney.
Joseph W Seifert. The police have a right to investigate and discuss the case with any adult party they feel necessary to get at the truth of the matter in order to determine if a crime has been committed. They can reveal whatever facts are necessary to that end.
If police are investigating a suspected crime they not only may talk to anyone they desire, they have a duty to do so. You, on the other hand, have a constitutional right to remain silent and not to make any statements whatsoever and I advise you to do that...
Your lawyer is allowed to ensure that you are aware of the evidence in your case and allow you to assist your them in defending you in your case. This can be accomplished by allowing your lawyer to read the discovery to you and allowing you to read the police reports in your lawyer’s presence.
If you fire your lawyer and hire someone else, your lawyer must turn over all of the discovery to the prosecutor. Once your new lawyer files his appearance, the prosecutor will turn over the discovery to your new lawyer. James Dimeas is a nationally-recognized, award-winning criminal defense lawyer.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 415 (c) provides that any Discovery material given to your lawyer “shall remain in his exclusive custody and be used only for the purposes of conducting his side of the case.” The purpose behind this rule is that police reports in a criminal case may include information that the law seeks to protect. Police reports may include the names and addresses of witnesses and police officers, and other identifying information that the Supreme Court does not want to be made public.
The Supreme Court Rules govern what happens in court and what your lawyer can or cannot do while they are representing you in a criminal case in court. Your lawyer is required to follow all those rules. The prosecutor is required to give your lawyer all of the evidence in your case.
This is called the “Discovery” stage of a criminal case.
Your lawyers’ conduct is governed by the Rules of Professional Responsibility. Those rules provide for certain ethical responsibilities that lawyers have to their clients and to the Court. The Supreme Court of Illinois has also enacted certain rules which limit what your lawyer can, or cannot do.
However, your lawyer remains obligated to communicate with you and keep you reasonably informed about your case. While Supreme Court Rule 415 (c) may seem to be in conflict with the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, the legal issues have been litigated and decided by the Courts.
Once the defense attorney gets off the stick and starts working on the case, we get the inmate out of our jail that much sooner. Time served and probation, or a sentence to prison gets him out of our hair, and we're glad to see that process expedited. There is no drama. Everybody except the inmate is a professional who already knows just about every word that will be said in court, what will happen at each step of the process, and what the likely outcome will be. If the prosecutor didn't think he could win the case, then the inmate would have been released already. The defense attorney is a professional, just like the prosecutor, and will probably come to the same conclusion about the likelihood of winning at trial. It's an infrequent thing for those two professionals to have opinions which are different enough to make a trial necessary, though sometimes the client will push that issue against his attorney's advice and force a trial (which he will likely lose). So, for the deputies, the Sheriff, and the jail staff, a lawyer visit just means that we're finally going to see some progress in that inmate's case. It's a good thing, and the lawyer is welcome. No demands necessary.
Often a lawyers is there to mitigate the consequences of your actions, like reducing the amount of years one is about to spend behind bars. Those are the types of situations were prosecution built an air tight case and you are most likely guilty (in reality).
A suspect is arrested. He is read his Miranda rights. They put the guy in the squad car and hauled to jail. The police in the car try to start up a casual conversation with him and get him to admit something.
The solicitor (UK lawyer) is called by us at the request of the detainee, as is his rights under PACE. If the solicitor were to learn that their client had been arrested separately rather than us calling them, all they would do is phone in and leave us their contact details for if and when the client wanted them.
Their role is to provide legal guidance and challenge what they per ceive as breaches of law or procedure, it is not to frustrate the police from doing their legitimate function.
I say the lawyer would be out of luck, because the lawyer has no special right to talk to his client. The client certainly has the right to demand the presence of an attorney before or during any questioning, but if we're already questioning the client, then that means the client has waived those Rights - volunteered to talk to us without an attorney present. They're his rights to waive, and if he waives them, then that attorney, essentially, isn't his attorney for purposes of that interview. I'm assuming here that this is a new case, by the way. If the inmate has already been to court on this case that we're questioning him about, and if an attorney appeared in court as his attorney for that case, then talking to the client without the permission of that attorney goes right out the window.
It’s 100% true, just with editing cuts to edit the waiting time. It’s illegal to deny the suspect a right to an attorney. If the police are actively questioning the suspect when the lawyer shows up, he will be lead to them relatively quickly (as in the police took the suspect into an interview room, and tried to begin questioning, and the suspect demanded his lawyer). If the lawyer were to show up at the jail after hours or other inconvenient time, there could be a long wait.