There are some lawyers that hire consulting firms to help in the appearance of their client for trial. Is this ethical?
209128
It is not a problem at all.  But the person who said that juries go on facts in totally wrong.  That's why lawyers advise their clients on appearance.\n\nFor example, I have known people who have been told to dress down to draw more sympathy from the jury.  If you look like you have money, the jury is less likely to feel sorry for you and award you a large sum of money.\n\nOn the other hand, there are some people that need some clean clothes and a haircut so they don't make idiots of themselves.  If you look like a hobo, no one is likely to take you seriously.\n\nI agree with the guy who said that technically a client could even argue that their attorney was not representing them to the utmost of his ability if he didn't cover ALL his bases.
45775
Absolutely! If the judge is aware of these facts, not only is he morally and ethically obliged to help. In fact, there may even be some criminal charges that can be pressed with enough proof. It is a despicable act on the Judge's and I would appeal to a higher court and sue the robe off that crooked Judge. Get an attorney and go with it. Go to the media if you have to.
29703
not a specific enough question.. different lawyers have differernt things they specialize in.. price is dependant on many factors.. time spent on the case.. and how good the lawyer is at what he does.. certainly not just anyone can hire good ol' jonny.. (god rest his crooked soul)\n\nusually you have to pay just to see the lawyer to tell him your side of the story.. (initial consultation)\n\ndont like his services?.. give him the axe.. but by the time you realize you dont like him.. you will probably owe quite a bit of money.. thats just the unfortunate truth..
654417
Not as crazy as it may seem.  If a person murders another person they have, as seen time and time again in every cop and lawyer show on Network TV, "the right to an attorney; if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you."   "Mirandizing" - the recitation of these rights - is required.  So let's say you hire an attorney to handle your divorce (always happy people involved in THOSE situations) and you are really dissatisfied with the result (s/he "got everything") and you think your shark attorney was worse than incompetent....all the rage boils up and you kill him/her.  You've committed murder and will "have the right to an attorney" in the criminal justice system.  Same scenario would work if you were on trial for murder already and decided to off your attorney because they were doing a lousy job (or whatever....) - you'd not only get an attorney for the murder of your attorney but you'd get a new attorney for your current trial.   All at taxpayer expense.
97295
Their Agent or Manager worked it in the contract so that their client, the actor would get more name, face, and character recognition.... simply a matter of good business.
452758
Doctors are bound by both the law, their ethical oath, and their own moral compass.  Doctors in this story are placing the privacy of their patient before the interests of the people.  The courts will sort it out.
150802
As a general rule, the corporate attorney owes a duty of care to the corporation, not to the opposing side.  If the corporation loses a case due to attorney negligence, it can sue the attorney but the opponents of the corporation.\n\nSuing an attorney for malpractice will require the corporation to hire another attorney as an expert witness to testify that the first attorney was negligent.\n\nEven without suing for malpractice, the client can complain to the state bar.  Negligent conduct and ethical violations can be grounds for discipline, including suspension and disbarment.
51621
Attorneys are, first and foremost, Officers of the Court.  If they are aware of evidence of a criminal offense, or receive evidence of such an offense, they are legally and ethically bound to turn that over to the court(s).
557797
Most of the time, it is not a great idea for the client to be on the stand because of cross-examination.  Especially if the client has anything shady in their past that could impact the trial, it is better to avoid taking the stand.  In some circumstances, a client who is articulate and believable might make a good witness.  Ohterwise, the risks far outweight any advantages.
364146
Im a legal assistant at a law firm and my advice is to hire a very good lawyer. I see stuff like this all the time.
517603
She can certainly speak about the case - what she can't do is reveal anything she learned from her client or during the course of the representation.  The attorney client privilege is a evidentiary standard that prevents a lawyer from revelaing anything told to her by the client - in other words such information is not admissible in court.  Broader than the attorney client privilege is the lawyers duty to safeguard client confidences - this includes not just things that might have been told to the lawyer by the client, but also any information relating to the representation of the client (unless the client consents.)  The ethical requirement to safeguard client confidences does not die with the client - those things can never be revealed.  Certainly the lawyer can speak about the case in general and can discuss all aspects of the case that came out in public without discharging her ethical duties.\n\nTo answer your second question, she can stil practice law as long as she is active member of the bar - if she let her membership in the state bar lapse she may have to seek readmittance.  Finally, all that being said, if the lawyer wanted to write a book about what happened and wanted to reveal things that her client told her or otherwise were in confidence, nothing physically stops her - but she would likely be disbarred (which may or may not be a concern if she's not practicing anyway) and she may be suject to a lawsuit by the client or the family for breach of duty.
389341
Although I don't practice in personal injury law, if I had a client who wanted to retain me to represent him, and I don't want the case because I "think he's nuts", then I would just indicate, IN WRITING, that I am declining to represent him.  With the exception of attorneys who accept court appointments in criminal matters (and certain civil matters) an attorney is not required to take a case, and is not required to give a reason for taking the case.\n\nI would also indicate in my letter declining representation that I am not declining representation based on an evaluation of his case, and have not made a determination nor am I advising him on the merits of his case.  I will then suggest he consult other counsel, but if I truly think that he's nuts, I won't refer him to another attorney.  If he asks, I would suggest he contact the bar association for a referral.
360546
you better off employing the services of a legal professional
563427
They're not supposed to lie TO their clients; they're supposed to lie FOR them!\n\nBut seriously, lawyers will tend to get disbarred for behaving in unethical ways based on the list of ethics they are supposed to memorize in law school.  This includes things like violating client/lawyer priviledge, lying in court (or, at least, getting caught at it!), committing felonies, and other things of those sorts.
330638
Research local Attorneys in your area, many of them work in several areas of the law - including criminal, domestic, bankruptcy, etc. Build a realtionship with him/her. However, I think it is unethical for Attorneys to collect fees for services they have not provided yet. Yes, Attorneys do have to follow a code of ethics. \n\n(If you are paying a criminal lawyer in advance for acts you havent commited yet, I have to wonder what the heck you are planning on doing.)\n\nInstead of doing this, I would sincerly recommend putting extra cash in a savings account each month instead. You'd collect interest each month you didnt need an Attorney.
456820
You are talking about OJ S and Baretta's RB, other wellknown celebs. Well, they have money to pay (off) the best lawyers to paint them in the brightest colors, and act like they believe in their client's innocence. Then the jury is more often than not star-struck and they can't get their brain to function lucidly.
94880
They are getting comission but not in the traditional commission form.  At retail shops, the associates earn incentives for every person they sign up for a card.  \n\nI don't believe that it is really unethical per se, just more of a nuisance than anything else.