Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
 61 
 on: August 21, 2015, 12:01:29 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by Citylaw
Excellent points.

Basically, if your gong into the legal profession expect your client to have done something wrong.

Something as wholesome as representing the Catholic Church, is not without its illegal activities such as child molestation, taking land from people and god knows what else. Of course they do plenty of good things as well and that is the case with any client.

Very few people are just terrible with no redeming quality. Illegal immigrants I could justify representing them and I could justify forcing them out.

The banks are a perfect example. Did banks do shady stuff that led to the mortgage meltdown? Yep. Are their deadbeats that did not pay these shady organizations? Yep.  I wouldn't say either is some righteous person and I could see arguing for either side.

 62 
 on: August 21, 2015, 09:49:52 AM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by loki13
I mentioned these counter theories which I why I stressed the non legal act part of it. Helping to further a non legal act violates prof procedure.
Any deeper analysis is just justification.

What? Seriously, I don't understand your point. Let's take an easy example. How about a foreclosure. Let's say we have two "bad" actors in a judicial foreclosure state-
A bank that, arguably, doesn't have requisite standing at the beginning of the case. (Issues with the note)
A borrower that hasn't been paying.

So, by your argument, neither side is entitled to representation? And any deeper analysis is only "justificiation?" The bank shouldn't have representation, because no attorney should help a bank try to establish standing to foreclose when it appears the bank lacks standing. And no attorney should help the borrower, because no one is entitled to keep living in a place they have no right to (sound familiar)?

I'm having serious trouble understanding your views, other than you don't like something, so you don't feel the need to think about it.

 63 
 on: August 20, 2015, 05:46:19 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by 🐍
Giving legal advice on how to continue an illegal act is a violation of the rules of prof procedure
and yeah, harboring runaway slaves WAS illegal (and enforced). And murder is another example, equally illegally. Your post pretty much sums up my point about how people view the subject, the feel they are in the moral right, so it justifies being in the legal wrong. I have trouble digesting that concept. And just so you know if simply tell them how to get away with an upcoming murder, you'd be in violation too. Just in case there is any confusion there. You don't have to do the act, its the aiding through legal advice and assistance of any kind that is the violation. And helping immigrants come to America is legit, and it is funny how often people try to confuse those two. They are polar opposites. That's like comparing legally buying a car to carjacking.

There's a lot that's confusing, here. Let's take the first sentence. For example, one can often get confused with the term "illegal." I know that in your first post, you basically stated, "civil, whatevs," but the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum is kind of important. More importantly, you don't really specify what it is that you are objecting to. There are some undocumented immigrants that are allowed to stay here, upon going through proper procedures. And there are occasions when they aren't, but an attorney is well within their rights to advocate for their clients interests to try and stay as long as possible (and, conversely, the opposing attorney may want to get deport them).

Think of another civil context- if a person represents a business, and knows the business committed a civil infraction, but the statute of limitations past, should the attorney just think to themselves, "Well, I shouldn't argue procedure, because what they did was illegal!" What if it's something more arguable (an unclear affirmative defense)?

I think your policy views might be affecting your other views.
I mentioned these counter theories which I why I stressed the non legal act part of it. Helping to further a non legal act violates prof procedure.
Any deeper analysis is just justification.

 64 
 on: August 20, 2015, 04:03:51 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by Maintain FL 350
Maintain, I didn't say anything about notarios. Soy de Los Angeles, so I am certainly familiar with them. I was more shocked that the poster was alleging that attorneys were violating their professional responsibilities by advocating for immigrants.

Indeed.

Advocating for an immigrant, even an illegal immigrant, is not in itself a violation of any professional duty.

Pie:

Your argument is that by assisting the illegal immigrant in becoming legal, the lawyer is furthering the illegal activity? I see the logic, but no. And this isn't just an issue of politics or political correctness.

Lawyers are permitted to assist clients who are currently afoul of the law but wish to become compliant. Think of a client walking into a tax lawyer's office and saying "I haven't paid income tax in five years, but I want to get right with the IRS and avoid jail." As long as the lawyer does not assist the tax fugitive in hiding assets, or setting up offshore accounts, or producing fake returns, he can assist the client in clearing up his legal problems with the IRS.

So, if an immigration lawyer tells an immigrant to claim political asylum when he knows it's a bogus claim, or tells the client to lie about how long he's been in the country to take advantage of an amnesty, or whatever, then he's breached his ethical duties. But not just by representing and advocating zealously on behalf of the client.

Going completely afield of the original topic, IIRC, isn't it it the case that there is a difference between the function of an American notary and notaries in (some) other countries? For example, I believe that certain European notaries have what some of us would view as quasi-lawyer abilities.

Might that be the case with "true" Mexican (in Mexico) notaries, thus causing some confusion?
 

Yes, definitely. Notarios are common in Latin America and usually have some degree of training or certification. They have very clear roles, and can only perform certain tasks. How well this is regulated varies according to the country.

The problem in the U.S. is that many people calling themselves "notarios" and running storefront offices have zero training in American law. I believe Calbar was looking into some sort of training or regulatory action, but I don't know what came of it.

 65 
 on: August 20, 2015, 04:03:08 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by loki13
Giving legal advice on how to continue an illegal act is a violation of the rules of prof procedure
and yeah, harboring runaway slaves WAS illegal (and enforced). And murder is another example, equally illegally. Your post pretty much sums up my point about how people view the subject, the feel they are in the moral right, so it justifies being in the legal wrong. I have trouble digesting that concept. And just so you know if simply tell them how to get away with an upcoming murder, you'd be in violation too. Just in case there is any confusion there. You don't have to do the act, its the aiding through legal advice and assistance of any kind that is the violation. And helping immigrants come to America is legit, and it is funny how often people try to confuse those two. They are polar opposites. That's like comparing legally buying a car to carjacking.

There's a lot that's confusing, here. Let's take the first sentence. For example, one can often get confused with the term "illegal." I know that in your first post, you basically stated, "civil, whatevs," but the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum is kind of important. More importantly, you don't really specify what it is that you are objecting to. There are some undocumented immigrants that are allowed to stay here, upon going through proper procedures. And there are occasions when they aren't, but an attorney is well within their rights to advocate for their clients interests to try and stay as long as possible (and, conversely, the opposing attorney may want to get deport them).

Think of another civil context- if a person represents a business, and knows the business committed a civil infraction, but the statute of limitations past, should the attorney just think to themselves, "Well, I shouldn't argue procedure, because what they did was illegal!" What if it's something more arguable (an unclear affirmative defense)?

I think your policy views might be affecting your other views.

 66 
 on: August 20, 2015, 03:59:33 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by Citylaw
See I think you are missing a key element, which is the timeline. Of course you cannot aid in the murder, but if someone commits the murder you can defend them.

With an illegal immigrant the act is committed and they are defended. If an attorney forged paperwork to help them enter and achieve the act that is different.

As to the ideology argument that is what most lawyers do argue an idealogy.

There are Tenant Advocates that protect deadbeats, then there are bank lawyers that cover up foreclosure fraud, so on and so on.

As a Judge once told me agreed about everything we wouldn't have any work.

 67 
 on: August 20, 2015, 02:55:55 PM 
Started by cinnamon synonym - Last post by 🐍
Tbf, he isn't that fat anymore. He even looks svelte compared to an average 'murican.
No one who vote for the "average 'murican" either.

 68 
 on: August 20, 2015, 02:54:47 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by 🐍
Just to go back I think the whole point of lawyers is to argue for things that are not necessarily legal.

A few months ago helping a same-sex couple get married was illegal now it is not.

Harboring fugitive slaves was highly illegal and I am sure lawyers defended those that participated in that.

American soliders putting Japanesse in Internment Camps were doing so legally, but now that is frowned upon.

Many attorneys advocate for changes in Guantanemo Bay I could go on and on, but the point of a lawyer is to do what they can to protect their clients' interest.

The "law" changes quite often and what is or is not legal can be entirely different in 10 years.

Clearly a lawyer cannot do illegal acts, but they can advice someone how to not get in trouble.  I.E. a Criminal Defense Lawyer will tell their client don't say anything as they are trying to avoid a conviction.

Lawyers represent their clients needs. Of course if a client asks a lawyer to kill someone that does not justify it, but helping illegal immigrants stay in the country is not something I would want to work on, but there are certainly rational arguments supporting helping immigrants come to America.
Giving legal advice on how to continue an illegal act is a violation of the rules of prof procedure
and yeah, harboring runaway slaves WAS illegal (and enforced). And murder is another example, equally illegally. Your post pretty much sums up my point about how people view the subject, the feel they are in the moral right, so it justifies being in the legal wrong. I have trouble digesting that concept. And just so you know if simply tell them how to get away with an upcoming murder, you'd be in violation too. Just in case there is any confusion there. You don't have to do the act, its the aiding through legal advice and assistance of any kind that is the violation. And helping immigrants come to America is legit, and it is funny how often people try to confuse those two. They are polar opposites. That's like comparing legally buying a car to carjacking.

 69 
 on: August 20, 2015, 02:48:04 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by Citylaw
Just to go back I think the whole point of lawyers is to argue for things that are not necessarily legal.

A few months ago helping a same-sex couple get married was illegal now it is not.

Harboring fugitive slaves was highly illegal and I am sure lawyers defended those that participated in that.

American soliders putting Japanesse in Internment Camps were doing so legally, but now that is frowned upon.

Many attorneys advocate for changes in Guantanemo Bay I could go on and on, but the point of a lawyer is to do what they can to protect their clients' interest.

The "law" changes quite often and what is or is not legal can be entirely different in 10 years.

Clearly a lawyer cannot do illegal acts, but they can advice someone how to not get in trouble.  I.E. a Criminal Defense Lawyer will tell their client don't say anything as they are trying to avoid a conviction.

Lawyers represent their clients needs. Of course if a client asks a lawyer to kill someone that does not justify it, but helping illegal immigrants stay in the country is not something I would want to work on, but there are certainly rational arguments supporting helping immigrants come to America.


 70 
 on: August 20, 2015, 12:27:58 PM 
Started by Citylaw - Last post by Groundhog
Maintain, I didn't say anything about notarios. Soy de Los Angeles, so I am certainly familiar with them. I was more shocked that the poster was alleging that attorneys were violating their professional responsibilities by advocating for immigrants.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10