Originally posted by sh76Following legal procedures is certainly "inconvenient" to the accused. But that you would think that anyone should be free to disregard them whenever they please if YOU are convinced that they "didn't do anything wrong" AND that you think a lawyer should advise them in that manner shows your knowledge of legal ethics needs reviewing.
All crimes are not the same. When I said that, I was referring to a person who launched a malicious and devastating cyber attack on US government institutions. That's a little different from breaking up a fight on a plane.
I don't think the Brasilian legal system is lawless or comparable to that of Iran, but as I do not think the marshals did anything wrong ...[text shortened]... ed to suffer the inconvenience of having to remain in Brasil for an indefinite period of time.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI am not a lawyer in Brazil. I am a lawyer in New York. It is not my ethical responsibility to tell my American client to follow Brazilian law. In this case, it would be malpractice to do so.
Following legal procedures is certainly "inconvenient" to the accused. But that you would think that anyone should be free to disregard them whenever they please if YOU are convinced that they "didn't do anything wrong" AND that you think a lawyer should advise them in that manner shows your knowledge of legal ethics needs reviewing.
Originally posted by sh76Surely you can't be so ignorant of your ethical responsibilities as to believe that you are ethically REQUIRED to advise a client to disobey a lawful court order?
I am not a lawyer in Brazil. I am a lawyer in New York. It is not my ethical responsibility to tell my American client to follow Brazilian law. In this case, it would be malpractice to do so.
Originally posted by sh76Is this Disciplinary Rule unclear to you:
I am not a lawyer in Brazil. I am a lawyer in New York. It is not my ethical responsibility to tell my American client to follow Brazilian law. In this case, it would be malpractice to do so.
DR 7-106(A): A. A lawyer shall not disregard or advise the client to disregard a standing rule of a tribunal or a ruling of a tribunal made in the course of a proceeding, but the lawyer may take appropriate steps in good faith to test the validity of such rule or ruling.
(note the definition of a "Tribunal" in the rules: "Tribunal" includes all courts, arbitrators and all other adjudicatory bodies.)
Or this one: DR 1-102 A lawyer of law firm shall not:
(5): 5. Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Actively advising your client to disobey a Brazilian court order is an ethical breach and you cannot be guilty of malpractice by refusing to violate the Disciplinary rules.
Originally posted by no1marauderDo you have authority that this rule applies to rules of foreign jurisdictions, or is that merely a supposition?
Is this Disciplinary Rule unclear to you:
DR 7-106(A): A. A lawyer shall not disregard or advise the client to disregard a standing rule of a tribunal or a ruling of a tribunal made in the course of a proceeding, but the lawyer may take appropriate steps in good faith to test the validity of such rule or ruling.
(note ...[text shortened]... reach and you cannot be guilty of malpractice by refusing to violate the Disciplinary rules.
Surely there has to be some standard of the level of legitimacy in the eyes of US law of the relevant tribunal before it is protected by the ethics rules. Do you have any authority for where this line is drawn?
BTW, haven't the DRs now been superceded since NY enacted the ABA MRPC?
Originally posted by sh76The English language is unclear to you?
Do you have authority that this rule applies to rules of foreign jurisdictions, or is that merely a supposition?
Surely there has to be some standard of the level of legitimacy in the eyes of US law of the relevant tribunal before it is protected by the ethics rules. Do you have any authority for where this line is drawn?
BTW, haven't the DRs now been superceded since NY enacted the ABA MRPC?
Originally posted by no1marauder🙄
The English language is unclear to you?
Can you answer the question, please?
Question: How do you know those rules apply to the actions of foreign courts?
I'm not looking for a meaningless sarcastic remark about my understanding of the English language. So, if you have an answer, it would be appreciated.
Originally posted by sh76He cant answer the question honestly and he knows it. All you are going to get is "meaningless, sarcastic" remarks
🙄
Can you answer the question, please?
Question: How do you know those rules apply to the actions of foreign courts?
I'm not looking for a meaningless sarcastic remark about my understanding of the English language. So, if you have an answer, it would be appreciated.
Originally posted by utherpendragonI don't know. Maybe there is an authority that the DR applies to foreign courts. Maybe there isn't. I could research it, but no time right now, maybe later.
He cant answer the question honestly and he knows it. All you are going to get is "meaningless, sarcastic" remarks
But it's a perfectly reasonable question.
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Re-read the definition: is the word "all" unknown to you?
🙄
Can you answer the question, please?
Question: How do you know those rules apply to the actions of foreign courts?
I'm not looking for a meaningless sarcastic remark about my understanding of the English language. So, if you have an answer, it would be appreciated.
The MRPC includes the same words in its definition of "tribunal". It has an identical rule 8.4(d) regarding the administration of justice. And it has this:
3.3 (b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.
You are grasping at straws; there is no reasonable argument that a lawyer can advise a client to disobey a lawful court order. I think you know this.
MRPC 8.5:
(a) Disciplinary Authority. A lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, regardless of where the lawyer's conduct occurs. A lawyer not admitted in this jurisdiction is also subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction if the lawyer provides or offers to provide any legal services in this jurisdiction. A lawyer may be subject to the disciplinary authority of both this jurisdiction and another jurisdiction for the same conduct.
(b) Choice of Law. In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, the rules of professional conduct to be applied shall be as follows:
(1) for conduct in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits, unless the rules of the tribunal provide otherwise; and
Originally posted by no1marauderThat doesnt apply to foreign governments. You're taking it out of context.
Re-read the definition: is the word "all" unknown to you?
The MRPC includes the same words in its definition of "tribunal". It has an identical rule 8.4(d) regarding the administration of justice. And it has this:
3.3 (b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person inte ...[text shortened]... nt that a lawyer can advise a client to disobey a lawful court order. I think you know this.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI'll take that as a
Re-read the definition: is the word "all" unknown to you?
The MRPC includes the same words in its definition of "tribunal". It has an identical rule 8.4(d) regarding the administration of justice. And it has this:
3.3 (b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person inte ...[text shortened]... nt that a lawyer can advise a client to disobey a lawful court order. I think you know this.
"I have no authority that any of these rules apply to actions of foreign courts"
Edit: MR 8.5 refers to conduct done outside the jurisdiction, not actions in contravention of a foreign court.
Nothing in any of those specify that another jurisdiction includes those outside the United States. Obviously, the rules have to distinguish between US jurisdictions and other in some way, or every self-professed court in the world would have the same effect.
None of the language you cited is relevant to this question.