<p>Sure. Lawyers routinely lie in court. They are under no obligation to tell the truth unless they are the witness on the stand. If not, misleading everyone in the room is standard operating procedure. Attorneys are not sworn in while they are operating as advocates.</p>
<p>Or take attorney-client privilege. This grand notion protects the client's from lawyers revealing confidential information to the detriment of the client. The legal profession makes much of the sanctity of this principle and adherence to it as evidence of legal ethics. Of course one major exception to it is that the attorney can reveal any and all information in order to get the client to pay their fee. Try applying that to priest-penitent or physician-patient to get some perspective on the low ethical standards of law.</p>
<p>Or intentionally misleading other innocent parties to the benefit of the client. There is a lovely example of this from the Philadelphia Bar Association (ethics opinion 93-6). In short it concludes that a lawyer who discovers that his or her client is not only defrauding party A, with whom settlement negotiations are underway, but also party B, who is unaware of the fraud, is under no obligation to inform party B. Most of the discussion of this "ethics" opinion revolves around lawyerly drafting settlement agreements with party A that avoid any reference to party B, and ensuring that the lawyer does not purposely destroy evidence of the fraud. Now if those documents were to be discarded by the client after the settlement...</p>
<p>Does anyone really believe that lawyers are not drawn from the left tail of the ethical distribution?</p>
<p>thanks for the bashing. it seems as though you've got an axe to grind. i had a professor who told me never to try to match pathos with logos when arguing ethos. so i won't.</p>
<p>You leave me a dilemma: Do I follow the advice set forth in Proverbs 24:4 ("Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him") or in 24:5: (" Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit")?</p>
<p>I'm not too keen on being "like unto you," but gosh, I hate seeing you be "wise in your own conceit." What would Solomon do? </p>
<p>OK, I'll split the baby by responding to only one of your statements.</p>
<p>Lying in court can cost an attorney his/her license. Here's the ABA model rule on the subject (the basis for enaced state law in most jurisdictions:</p>
<p>Model Rules of Professional Conduct
ADVOCATE
RULE 3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL</p>
<p>(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or
(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyers client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
(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.
(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.
(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.</p>