Lawyers' Ethics

Working in the legal profession, I am amazed at how much “lying” a litigant can get away with in Taiwanese courts. I’m not talking about stretching the truth or putting a particular spin on a factual situation. Rather, I’m talking about straight out, nothing could be further from the truth “lying.” From what I have seen, people can stand up in a court of law here and spout the most ridiculous and unsubstantiated crap with little or no penalty. Further, I have seen an opposing litigant supply the court with evidence that had obviously been doctored and the judge did absolutely nothing. No sanction, no rebuke, nothing.

I’m not saying that lawyers in the States don’t lie, but I have never seen anything in the US that would compare to the BS that Taiwanese lawyers come up with. In the US, if a lawyer knowingly submitted false evidence, he would face suspension or disbarment. From my experience here, it’s par for the course.

[quote=“smerf”]Working in the legal profession, I am amazed at how much “lying” a litigant can get away with in Taiwanese courts. I’m not talking about stretching the truth or putting a particular spin on a factual situation. Rather, I’m talking about straight out, nothing could be further from the truth “lying.” From what I have seen, people can stand up in a court of law here and spout the most ridiculous and unsubstantiated crap with little or no penalty. Further, I have seen an opposing litigant supply the court with evidence that had obviously been doctored and the judge did absolutely nothing. No sanction, no rebuke, nothing.

I’m not saying that lawyers in the States don’t lie, but I have never seen anything in the US that would compare to the BS that Taiwanese lawyers come up with. In the US, if a lawyer knowingly submitted false evidence, he would face suspension or disbarment. From my experience here, it’s par for the course.[/quote]

So the only difference in the two is that the US is hypocritical about it - it’s not wrong until you’re caught.

Same as Australia, and the rest of the west I imagine. :laughing:

[quote=“Fortigurn”]
So the only difference in the two is that the US is hypocritical about it - it’s not wrong until you’re caught.

Same as Australia, and the rest of the west I imagine. :laughing:[/quote]

How is the US hypocritical about it?

There may be lawyers in the US who lie and provide false evidence in court. That could happen anywhere. However, in California where I practiced, this type of misconduct is dealt with severely by the courts and Bar Association and the evidence is thrown out. Here? The judge is either too stupid, too timid or thinks lying in court is no big deal. I have no idea what goes through the mind of a judge who allows a lawyer to submit false evidence without any rebuke whatsoever.

[quote=“smerf”][quote=“Fortigurn”]
So the only difference in the two is that the US is hypocritical about it - it’s not wrong until you’re caught.

Same as Australia, and the rest of the west I imagine. :laughing:[/quote]

How is the US hypocritical about it?[/quote]

It’s not just the US - please let’s not drag nationalism into this issue. Hypocrisy is when you say one thing and do another. In the west, it is perfectly acceptable to do these things as long as you aren’t caught. When you’re caught, then everyone pretends to be shocked, even if they knew you were doing it all along.

As I’ve said, the corporate sector is full of this. Businesses lie to each other. Employers lie to their employees. Departments in a company lie to other departments in the same company. We are taught these strategies from an early age, and they are reinforced by the media in our culture.

If we want to be non-hypocritical, we have to stop teaching a culture of deception.

Yes defnitely, I agree.

When they are caught, yes. But that doesn’t change the fact that the dishonest behaviour is ingrained in the society to begin with, because it is taught by the society to the members of the society.

It is expected of laywers that they will lie. It’s a standard meme in our culture. Indeed, we often say it’s what they are paid for.

Nor do I. But at least you know he’s going to be consistent.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]
When they are caught, yes. But that doesn’t change the fact that the dishonest behaviour is ingrained in the society to begin with, because it is taught by the society to the members of the society.

It is expected of laywers that they will lie. It’s a standard meme in our culture. Indeed, we often say it’s what they are paid for.[/quote]

I do not know what “society” you are talking about, but if you are talking about the US and/or the legal profession in the US, your point above is complete BS. I was raised in US “society,” studied law in a US law school and later mentored by a California lawyer in my first few years of work and I was never “taught” to lie. In fact, my law school and mentor both emphasized the value and importance of ethical conduct in the legal profession. Your statement above leads me to think that you have read a few too many John Grisham novels.

[quote=“smerf”][quote=“Fortigurn”]
When they are caught, yes. But that doesn’t change the fact that the dishonest behaviour is ingrained in the society to begin with, because it is taught by the society to the members of the society.

It is expected of laywers that they will lie. It’s a standard meme in our culture. Indeed, we often say it’s what they are paid for.[/quote]

I do not know what “society” you are talking about, but if you are talking about the US and/or the legal profession in the US, your point above is complete BS. I was raised in US “society,” studied law in a US law school and later mentored by a California lawyer in my first few years of work and I was never “taught” to lie. In fact, my law school and mentor both emphasized the value and importance of ethical conduct in the legal profession. Your statement above leads me to think that you have read a few too many John Grisham novels.[/quote]

I don’t read John Grisham novels. I did not say that lawyers are formally taught to lie.

I did say that society teaches dishonest behaviour to the members of the society. I also said that it is expected of lawyers that they will lie. I also said that this is a standard meme in our society, and that we often say it is what they are paid for.

You are at liberty to dispute any of these statements and give your reasons. Thanks.

I think the ethical lapses that have plagued the US business world (with some big flame outs in the EU like Parmalat) are indicative of society’s norms. I agree with both smerf and Fortigurn. But both are talking about different eras.

A very balanced post, thanks for that. :notworthy:

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve been practicing law now since 1990 and I have never been asked to lie or expected to lie. In fact, it is often the clients who lie… and we usually know it when they are lying… or they simply don’t tell us the entire truth… and we usually know when they are doing that as well.

[quote=“smerf”][quote=“Fortigurn”]
When they are caught, yes. But that doesn’t change the fact that the dishonest behaviour is ingrained in the society to begin with, because it is taught by the society to the members of the society.

It is expected of laywers that they will lie. It’s a standard meme in our culture. Indeed, we often say it’s what they are paid for.[/quote]

I do not know what “society” you are talking about, but if you are talking about the US and/or the legal profession in the US, your point above is complete BS. I was raised in US “society,” studied law in a US law school and later mentored by a California lawyer in my first few years of work and I was never “taught” to lie. In fact, my law school and mentor both emphasized the value and importance of ethical conduct in the legal profession. Your statement above leads me to think that you have read a few too many John Grisham novels.[/quote]

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve been practicing law now since 1990 and I have never been asked to lie or expected to lie. In fact, it is often the clients who lie… and we usually know it when they are lying… or they simply don’t tell us the entire truth… and we usually know when they are doing that as well.[/quote]
Sure but on the other hand, the liar that gets caught gets punished and the one that doesn’t gets the partnership.
You might not have been taught directly to lie but I know you damn sure bend every rule, every word to suit your needs and if you say you don’t then you’re LYING…I know too many lawyers. :wink:

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve been practicing law now since 1990 and I have never been asked to lie or expected to lie. In fact, it is often the clients who lie… and we usually know it when they are lying… or they simply don’t tell us the entire truth… and we usually know when they are doing that as well.[/quote]

I didn’t say that anyone would ask you to lie or express their expectation to you that you lie. I said that it is expected of lawyers that they lie, that this is a standard meme in our society, and that we often say it is what they are paid for.

I am speaking of the perceptions of lawyers which our society has. I’m sure these perceptions are not new to you, though their accuracy may be debated.

If a client lies to you, and you know it, do you continue to represent their case? If you know they are guilty, do you continue to defend them?

Oh, this notion is a meme… well, repeating inaccuracies over and over does not make them become true. And this expectation is more illustrative of the collective morality of society at large than it is of the legal profession, IMO.

Yes, you’re right. I am familiar with these ideas and perceptions.

I never originally intended to become an attorney and even while in law school, I didn’t intend to practice law after graduation. Actually, I too used to believe that lawyers are liars… it wasn’t until I began practicing law that I came to believe that there is a good deal more ethical behavior and honesty in transactions among lawyers compared to the actions of the general public. It just so happens that we are often the ones in the middle of two or more parties who are each trying to get one over on each other and they are doing the lying. Put a lawyer in a mud puddle and he’ll get dirty. But, he cleans up easily. The clients, however, stay dirty, or at least stained.

I should correct a statement I made earlier… I have been asked to lie, now that I think about this. However, it was a client who asked me to lie, and of course I refused. I have never been asked to lie by any of my bosses or associates.

We always tell our clients the limits of our representation, and lying about anything goes beyond our limits. I personally do not litigate. However, of course attorneys continue to represent clients who lie (MANY clients lie). And just because a defendant is guilty does not mean that he should not be represented. Defendants still have rights, even when they are guilty. They have a right to due process, and attorneys can make certain that they are not denied that right without resorting to lying on behalf of the client.

The actual practice of law bears very little resemblance to the way it is portrayed on television and in the movies.

You know shit.

:unamused:

Oh, this notion is a meme… well, repeating inaccuracies over and over does not make them become true.[/quote]

I agree that it doesn’t make them true. I am saying nothing about whether or not it is true.

I agree. This is my entire point. It’s an illuminating (if depressing), reflection on the collective morality of society (of lack thereof).

A very balanced and informative answer, thank you so much.

Thank you again, this is very informative. It is interesting that the client considered it reasonable to ask you to lie.

We always tell our clients the limits of our representation, and lying about anything goes beyond our limits. I personally do not litigate. However, of course attorneys continue to represent clients who lie (MANY clients lie). And just because a defendant is guilty does not mean that he should not be represented. Defendants still have rights, even when they are guilty. They have a right to due process, and attorneys can make certain that they are not denied that right without resorting to lying on behalf of the client.[/quote]

It’s this kind of fine detail which interests me - that a guilty person should have the right to represent themselves as innocent, and that it is ethical for another person to represent them as innocent even when they know they are guilty.

I haven’t had a telelvision for 12 years, and I rarely go to any movies (when I went to one recently, my wife had to tell me ‘That’s Brad Pitt, that’s Julia Roberts’).

What I find is most telling is the fact that in our society in the west, that which is legal or illegal is not determined by what is ethical or not ethical.

In Australia, for example, conduct which is unethical is not always illegal. This sends a clear message as to the values of the society.

I know. I am responding actually to this perception rather than to you.

Well, ours (the US system) is far from perfect. However, the overall benefits of forcing the state to prove a defendant’s guilt (I think that more accurately describes our system… i.e., our system does not “permit” a guilty person to represent himself as innocent, rather, our system forces the state to prove his guilt) are such that we do provide the accused certain basic rights. This may result in a certain number of guilty “getting off”… but, overall, this system works well for the vast majority of those who go through it.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]What I find is most telling is the fact that in our society in the west, that which is legal or illegal is not determined by what is ethical or not ethical.

In Australia, for example, conduct which is unethical is not always illegal. This sends a clear message as to the values of the society.[/quote]

I’m not sure that this is so simple. Very interesting issue for discussion, however.

In any event, I think that nearly all laws (in democratic nations) are based, at their core, on the Golden Rule.

I agree fundamentally with the adversarial system and the presumption of innocence - possibly the best of the systems we can manage in a subject which is inevitably doomed to slavery to various forms of injustice.

What concerns me is that the system requires the guilty to be defended, even in the knowledge of guilt.

I think it’s pretty close to this simple. Over the years an increasing number of activities which are still regarded as unethical are no longer regarded as illegal in Australia.

As a result of some study I understook for a lecture I gave on business ethics, I can say the same is the case for the US.

They might have been originally, but they’re increasingly less so. Once people start separating legislation from ethics (resulting in unethical behaviour becoming legal), then the attitude towards ethical behaviour in a society is going to decline.

But then it’s a pretty nasty little feedback loop in any case.

The system requires that the defendant’s rights be protected, even if we know the defendant is guilty.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]I think it’s pretty close to this simple. Over the years an increasing number of activities which are still regarded as unethical are no longer regarded as illegal in Australia.

As a result of some study I understook for a lecture I gave on business ethics, I can say the same is the case for the US.[/quote]

If you don’t mind, I’d be interested in some examples.

Maybe one of the Mods will split this off into a new discussion. Could be a good one.

Having just done a study on this, you are more familiar with the subject than am I. I haven’t looked at this from a study perspective since law school.

Again, I’d be interested in any examples you can provide.

Smerf and Tigerman, I agree. Sure, I experienced lots of lying in litigation in the states, from parties and attorneys. But blatant lies almost always came from the parties themselves, not the lawyers. Lawyers frequently exaggerate or use hyperbole, but in the US flat-out lies by lawyers are a serious ethical violation, which could subject one to scorn in ones law firm and the community and discipline by the State Bar, and in my several years of practice I found flat-out lies by lawyers to be fairly rare, and likely to come from one of the few lawyers in the community with a particularly slimy reputation.

Based on my limited experience in the Taiwan legal system, I agree that more lies are told here and in general there is less respect for the system. In trademark infringement cases defendants often make up the most absurd lies – I didn’t know Ralph Lauren was someone else’s trademark, etc. – and will tell them to the judge in court. If I were the judge who heard such a lie I’d slap the bastard and send him off for 10 years in jail, but here the judges are inexperienced young kids and apparently they tolerate such abuse.

Same for missing court dates. I’ve heard that attorneys and parties often do not show up in court when they’re scheduled to do so. Sure that happens in the US, but there it’s a serious matter. Here I believe the judge says “oh well” and reschedules it. Perhaps most amazingly is in criminal IP actions (lawsuits filed on behalf of society), I’ve been informed that the prosecutor usually won’t show up at any of the hearing dates and often will not even handle the trial, expecting the IP owner to hire counsel to step in and perform his job for him.

To me, all of the above is because a western style legal system, with definite legal and moral obligations and procedures is still all very new and foreign to the parties, lawyers, judges and prosecutors in Taiwan. To them cha bu duo is good enough. In the US it is not. Despite the opinions and jokes from outside the legal profession, in the US legal system legal and moral obligations and committments are very serious matters, most of the parties understand that, and when people screw up there are superiors who do understand that and will discipline them.

Taiwan will learn, but it will take time.

You know shit.

:unamused:[/quote]
Cool…so tell me how does someone who harbors such preconceived notions actually go about chosing a profession as a lawyer? Do you judge all your clients by the way they speak or dress? Do you actually care to think about someone before you tell them they ‘know shit.?’ Do you pick all your friends by the way they dress or the fact that they always agree with you?
Next thing you’ll be telling me that the 50% cut of the settlement, on top of the fees for mailings, etc., isn’t really enough to justify the work you put into a case (in the U.S.).
It must be nice to be omnipotent. Just lucky of all the lawyers I do know, and one is too many, at least I don’t have to depend on someone as judgmental as you to defend me. So they might bend the rules, take advantage of every loop hole but usually they don’t come straight out and verbally abuse people. Thank god you’re not a doctor. :unamused:

OT, but I don’t think a 50% contingency agreement would be legal anywhere in the US. It may not seem like it, but there are limits on how much an attorney can gouge his clients. :wink: