[DOWNLOAD] "Lawyers and Truth-Telling (Roundtable: The Lawyer's Responsibility to the Truth) (Federalist Society 2002 Symposium on Law and Truth)" by Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Lawyers and Truth-Telling (Roundtable: The Lawyer's Responsibility to the Truth) (Federalist Society 2002 Symposium on Law and Truth)
- Author : Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
- Release Date : January 01, 2003
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 272 KB
Description
Critics of the adversarial system's relationship with truth fall roughly into two groups. The first group, exemplified by John Langbein, seeks reform of our trial and pretrial procedures. These critics would give judges greater independent responsibility for truth-seeking. (1) The second group, exemplified by Judge Marvin Frankel, would give lawyers greater responsibility for truth-telling. (2) Although the approaches of these two groups can be combined, Langbein's approach seems more promising than Frankel's. High-minded, ethical pronouncements cannot transform adversarial tigers into public-spirited pussycats. (3) Both the market for legal services and the lawyer's sense of professional obligation press her not to reveal truths that will prove harmful to a client. (4) The dilemma posed by a client who proposes to present false testimony illustrates the difficulties of assigning the primary responsibility for truth-telling to lawyers. Under both the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the Model Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyers have a clear obligation not to present such testimony. (5) According to the commentary to these codes, the difficult questions arise when a client insists on testifying falsely and the lawyer is unable to withdraw. (6) Should the lawyer blow the whistle, refuse to call the client to the stand, permit the client to offer false testimony in narrative form, or something else? Much ink has been devoted to answering these questions, (7) but bar committees and legal academics seem to worry about them more than most trial lawyers do.