Article
| Jurisdiction | Utah,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 26 No. 4 Pg. 42 |
| Pages | 42 |
| Publication year | 2013 |
July/August 2013
HELPING OUR CLIENTS TELL THE TRUTH, PART II:
Ted Weckel.
Revisiting Utah Rule Of Professional Conduct 2.1 in Conjunction with Rules 1.2 and 1.4, the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, and State v. Holland
Several years ago, I wrote an article about whether Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 2.1 allowed an attorney as a counselor-at-law to consult with his or her client about the merits of accepting responsibility for a crime, if the lawyer believed that the client was lying about the facts of the case and the facts obtained by investigation suggested that the client was in fact guilty. Ted Weckel, Helping Our Clients Tell the Truth: Rules of Professional Conduct 2.1 in Criminal Cases, 20 Utah BARjouRNAi6(2007). Rule 2.1 allows a lawyer to provide moral advice that may be relevant to a client's case. I indicated that such an approach was consistent with a lawyer's professional duties as an advocate to defend a client's case with zeal and loyalty (should the client reject the lawyer's advice and wish to proceed to trial), and conformed with Utah's and the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct. However, upon conducting additional legal research, I have discovered that the question is more complex than I had originally anticipated and that additional information is needed to fully address the issue.
Being able to provide moral advice effectively assumes that a relationship of trust has been established between the lawyer and the client. It also assumes that the lawyer will help the client understand the importance of candidly disclosing the facts to be in a position to effectively advocate the client's cause. Being able to provide moral advice effectively also involves the client understanding the respective roles of client and lawyer in terms of how a case is to be managed. Frequently, a client may believe that he or she has the right to dictate to the lawyer how a case is to be managed. When this occurs, a dispute can arise between the lawyer and the client.
Comment 1 to Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2 does not prescribe how a lawyer is to resolve a dispute with the client over a tactical decision. Thus, if a client lies about the facts of the case, wishes to proceed to trial, or wants the lawyer to represent him or her and the lawyer is not permitted to withdraw, rule 1.2 does not indicate how such disputes should be resolved. For example, a client may wish to proceed with an actual innocence claim, while the lawyer may believe that it is in the client's best interest to proceed with a particular defense...
To continue reading
Request your trial