Michael Kinsley: Why Lawyers Are Liars
As a loyal member -- well, as a member -- of the District of Columbia Bar, I am aware of the tension between advocacy and honesty. But until the recent controversies over Supreme Court nominees, I was unaware of the scope and depth of my professional obligation to avoid telling the truth. It apparently spans an entire career in the law.
Michael Kinsley has this Op-Ed in today's Washington Post. (via the Wall Street Journal Law Blog)
Comments
Mr. Kingsley, I trained as a paralegal and I find some of what you are saying disturbing. I don't believe that a lawyer is lying when he finds cases that support his clients views. Isn't that what a client hires a lawyer for?
When we were taught how to write an interoffice memo, we were taught to find the cases that did, in fact, support our client's position. We also researched the cases that would be detrimental to our clients case. From these prior cases we were to extrapolate an opinion of the merits of our clients case. The attorney supervising our work would make the final determination of how strong a case the client might have. I do not consider adding an opinion of the merits of the case, based on precedent, a case of lying.
You are also aware that attorney-client priviledge does not end with a legal professional leaving one empoyment position for another. Patti S.
Posted by: Patti Skorski | January 21, 2006 5:24 AM
Ms. Skorski: I don't think Kinsley was knocking legal argument or rhetoric as practiced in behalf of clients. His point was this: They lied then, or later (before the Senate committee) about what they believed. One can lie about one's opinion in the same way as one can lie about what he had for lunch. The Rehnquist and Alito evasions were, according to Kinsley, misrepresentations of their opinions. It might have been better for them both to have agreed that that is what they meant, but don't mean it any more (if that is the truth).
Posted by: Dennis J. Tuchler | January 21, 2006 11:26 AM