imo the guy is a piece of ****.

i dont care what's "ethical"... i would absolutely disclose even if it means risking my job/career. i could never live with myself.

It is IMO. What if she showed him a video tape that clearly shows it was consensual. But then says "I need you to hold on to this because you're my lawyer, and now it's privileged and protected." IMO has to disclose. Greater duty is to the court and can't be used as a tool to perpetuate a fraud.

All you need from her medical records is "she lies, and she lies in exactly these situations." It's not even really a diagnosis. You don't need the diagnosis part. I mean it is, strictly speaking, but it's more of an expert testifying about her truthfulness, in the form of a diagnosis. It's not the same as "she had cancer 8 years ago" (and has nothing to do with the case) which is the point of the medical records protections.

Why isn't my glasses prescription (or the fact that I wear them) a privileged medical record?

if she gives him that video, he most definitely can't disclose that

i mean the real answer here is to go to your state bar's ethics counsel, explain the whole situation to them (you are allowed to do this) and then follow their advice... but sometimes their answer will be "we honestly dont know."

do note that following ethics counsel's advice doesnt act as an absolute bar to disciplinary or legal action, but it's going to be a de facto shield in most situations unless it's obviously really bad advice... and ive seen people who got really bad advice still effectively hide behind it. the bar isn't going to press discipline on you if their own ethics counsel told you what you did is ok.

There are a number of ethical ways he could have gone. He could have suggested that the court review the information in camera to determine for itself if it was relevant. He could have tipped the defense attorney that while he was not saying anything specific he thought the Defense attorney was on the right track. Could have suggested to him that while the med records were not coming in, the guy speak to her doctor. He could have had a conversation with the doctor and encouraged the doctor to come forward. He Could have told the court that: While this is not a fishing expedition, it is illegal to allow her records to be shared etc etc. The fishing part should have warned the defense counsel.
He also could have requested to speak to the court in camera and then been vauge but on the level for the court.


Now just because she lied about this before doesn't mean that the rape in this case didn't happen.

As a defense lawyer, I would be pissed. As a lawyer, I believe in zealous advocacy. I think he handled it right. His duty was to his client. It seems the defense counsel should have done more digging. If she had done this before, he didn't need medical records to prove it. He'd have had police and Court records.

don't you think all the obvious hinting crosses the line a bit?

Thanks, yeah I keep up with this stuff as I have a atty eventually willabe in the household and he keeps me up to date.

Again true, but criminal defense is also one of the few really good (not necessarily lucrative) areas of law that lends itself to solo practice and allows for one to 'hang a shingle' right out of school. The struggles or the new lawyer can be met with some creative thinking, and by recognizing wants v. needs and delaying gratification. It is not by any means going to make you rich in the beginning and forget paying student loans that way (then again you will have time for a second job that pays for things.) However once you get going in about 5 years you are in the right direction. Keep it simple and you can do okay. Find a job is difficult and not by any means a sure thing. Getting paid these days is hard and I am having problems with cash flow myself right now. If you are ready to forgo a few items (Like health insurance paid by the boss) you can find jobs in criminal law.

The most important thing, is to keep expectations low, keep interest and effort high and learn how to diversify the practice correctly so you don't get in over your head.

It can be done, but it isn't going to happen for one who is not drawn to the work. It isn't an area to be entered into lightly. Ar the very least find a decent mentor.

One more thought: Do not bother going to an unaccredited school. It is a waste of money.

Wish we'd devoted the thread to PR class last year, I might not have tanked.

I thought if she has a tape of the encounter the lawyer has to withdraw and not say anything.

Irony in the thread. PR Prof told us that new lawyers should never represent someone in criminal defense or income tax if they don't have an experienced supervisor. He said it so matter of factly that I thought it was an ABA rule and got the question wrong on the exam.

Due to PR if I get a D this week, I don't graduate.

This almost definitely contradicts what we learned in my PR class. He can't disclose it for lols when he feels like, but if he knows she's going to basically perjure herself, he has an obligation to disclose after telling her to do it first. If he knows his client is actually committing crimes right now (like actually stealing stuff as they speak) he has to tell the client to turn himself in, or he's going to do it for him. That's why lawyers don't ask a client "did you do it?" That's what we learned anyway. Not a barg or anything, but this guy taught my PR class (and Torts) and he's kinda the absolute man. Everyone loved him. Back when Obama was running there was a big article in the NYT about him being on law review, and it had a picture of the law review that year. I looked at the picture because I knew my prof was on law review around my time, and sure enough one of the few asians looked a lot like him. So I asked him about it, and he confirmed it was him, and then pretty much got shy about it and it was pretty clearly written on his face "please don't tell anyone I don't want the attention." Obv I also asked him how Obama was on law review and he gave me some generic answer like "he was very goo at getting everyone to get along." Sure enough I told all my friends.

http://www.law.suffolk.edu/faculty/d...structorID=892

AC said the word I was looking for earlier, in camera. The judge could have reviewed the actual records in camera to see what was being talked about.

I think the whole if my lawyer sees it, then privileged mindset is going away. Especially after all the financial mess that's been going on. But also I think it's also going away as everyone is disclosing everything now. Back in the day it was much more of a confrontational mindset with less discovery, more badgering witnesses and making them cry on the stand, and more of a battle of wits. That mindset is falling away AFAIK.

I booked my PR class (super TVB) and would hate myself no matter what I did in the rape case or the murder case. I know that model rules say not to disclose in both spots but I think I would tell in both spots even if it meant getting disbarred.

You seem to consistently be missing the point that he has absolutely 0 to do with her testifying. She is not a defendant. He is not defense counsel. He is a guardian ad litem representing her in one thing and one thing only. He has nothing to do with her testifying. He doesn't even need to know she's testifying. His representation is solely limited to sealing the health records.

I still don't see why the judge can't review the documents in camera. I don't understand why he wouldn't when ruling on a motion to seal them. How do you rule on a motion like that without even knowing their subject matter.

Zealous advocacy does not mean enabling fraud. Asking to seal the records is asking to seal evidence of fraud. It is not doing it for reasons of personal privacy. Sealing records is done for privacy reasons.

He isn't wrong per se, it is just that as long as the attorney does a competent job and handles cases commensurate with his ability he should do fine.
Any new lawyer handling a new case will get a lot of help from practicing criminal lawyers. Of course the moron who took the Murder case in DC as his first case was so far in over his head it was scary.

I suggest that a new lawyer can handle most misdemeanors and if he has a modicum of smarts even a DWI. Stay the hell away from felonies until you have a year or more under your belt. Upon getting your first case, (or better before) get to a mentoring attorney and ask for his forms and if he will help you handle your first matter.
No he needn't go to court with you, you just need to practice with him a few times before each court date even if you are just asking for an adjournment. IF you get lost ask the court for another call and tell the court you need a moment to speak to your mentor about what is happening.

Criminal law courts mostly do not want to hurt defendants and are out to help train lawyers if they act humbly and do not take on matters over their heads.

Now as for tax issues... He was right.

Ye who tell tales of "I did nothing all year until the day before and booked the exam"

what are you studying the night before?

10 hours until a closed note IP exam with 30 mcs, a short essay on the MCs, then some long ass policy essay

old student or commercial outlines

what karak said but also make sure u look at every single old exam. a lot of times i was able to have up to 50% of the test already answered because most profs find a way to work in the exact same issues over and over and only bother changing party names or something insignificant. this might be particularly helpful considering the test is MC.

Securities Regulations is taught at my school by one our best professors, a really great guy and great instructor. He worked for the SEC for a number of years, etc etc. Anyway, his exam was literally the hardest exam I've ever taken in my life. He gave us 2 hours for the written portion but said we only really needed 1.5 hours. With 5 minutes left it was impossible to hear in the room because everyone was typing so loud/fast. Jesus, I feel super drained.

at least everyone is in the same boat as you. i hate that feeling though... clock ticking and you feel like youve barely dented the thing.

from what ive heard thats one of the hardest law school classes. i didnt take it, thankfully.

In law professor speak, "I'm giving you more time than you need" is almost always code for "Do not plan on leaving the exam one second early."

+1. I once had a prof who gave us 8 hours for a take home but said, "I wrote this just like an in-class exam so you should do it in 3.5 hours then take an hour break, have a drink, and then re-read and edit if you need to with all of your additional time." It was a ridiculous final that took me every second of the 8 hours. I didn't get to have that drink until afterward.

I guess I better hunker down for my prof responsibility final because he gave us 9 full days to do the final and said we have plenty of extra time -- but please dont go over 20 pages.

My first take home final is tomorrow, and I've never taken one before. Advice greatly appreciated.

Employment Law, and his secretary will email it to us tomorrow morning "When she gets in" and we are to hand in a hard copy by 4:00 pm on Thursday afternoon. So it looks like we will have around 30 hours or so?

Plan of attack, keeping in mind that I don't know the first thing about Employment Law?

How can an exam take 30 hours? How ****ing long is it going to be?

I figure spend a few hours as soon as I get it reading it, teaching myself Employment Law, and doing research/outlining issues and stuff. Then go for a run or something, and then spend 8-10 hours or so (With breaks to eat and stuff) spewing thousands of words into a word document.

Then sleep until 9ish, and spend the last 6 or 7 hours editing, revising, and polishing the spew from the night before.

Sound about right?

Haha, so true.

Yea, seems pretty much my plan to the T for Environmental Law.

on my 8 hour open note corps take home i did the following:

first 30 minutes: reading the questions/panicking

next 4 hours: teaching myself a semester of corporations

final 3.5 hours: doing the exam