Law School Discussion

seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days

Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #70 on: August 20, 2015, 01:59:33 PM »
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.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #71 on: August 20, 2015, 02:03:08 PM »
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.

Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #72 on: August 20, 2015, 02:03:51 PM »
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.

Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #73 on: August 20, 2015, 03:46:19 PM »
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.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #74 on: August 21, 2015, 07:49:52 AM »
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.

Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #75 on: August 21, 2015, 10:01:29 AM »
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.

Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #76 on: August 21, 2015, 11:37:48 AM »
In fairness to Pie, I think he was arguing that by assisting the illegal immigrant in staying in the U.S. the lawyer is helping to perpetuate an ongoing illegal activity.

The problem with this argument however, is that even though the illegal immigrant's continued presence in the country may be illegal, the lawyer is actually attempting to rectify the situation by bringing the client into compliance with the law. There is nothing unethical about a lawyer saying "You are currently here illegally, but you may qualify for legal status via X, Y, and Z." This is what lawyers do all the time, in all sorts of contexts.

Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #77 on: August 21, 2015, 12:02:42 PM »
That is a valid point, but I think a lot of legal practice is more or less going to assist someone rectify a prior bad act.

The bank example is a good analogy.

The Banks engaged in robo-signing, bad mortgages, blah blah, and Bank Attorneys will seek to validate a Bank's authority to foreclose even if was initially done illegally. 

Conversely, the homeowner being foreclosed likely did not make payments and is holding over in the home. Their attorney will represent them to keep them in their home and rectify their failure to pay.

There are hundreds of examples of that and basically any time you are in a litigation scenario you are resolving some prior unlawful act.

A Transnational Attorney is preventive so it is a little different, but even there a client may want to do as little as possible and get to a gray-area of lawful/unlawful.

In summary the legal legal profession is not all Lolipops and Rainbows.

Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #78 on: August 21, 2015, 08:56:57 PM »
In fairness to Pie, I think he was arguing that by assisting the illegal immigrant in staying in the U.S. the lawyer is helping to perpetuate an ongoing illegal activity.

The problem with this argument however, is that even though the illegal immigrant's continued presence in the country may be illegal, the lawyer is actually attempting to rectify the situation by bringing the client into compliance with the law. There is nothing unethical about a lawyer saying "You are currently here illegally, but you may qualify for legal status via X, Y, and Z." This is what lawyers do all the time, in all sorts of contexts.
you understand me in part and misunderstand in another. I agree that going to court (for anything) is a good idea. Make your good faith arguments.
I am talking about lawyers who give advise to AVOID court/arrest/etc. They are out there and very open about it. Replace with any other non legal act and its that simple. People who are still confused WANT to be confused on it.

loki13

  • ****
  • 543
  • Exterminate all rational thought.
    • View Profile
Re: seriously cal-bar F-U shortening the exam to two days
« Reply #79 on: August 22, 2015, 05:56:07 AM »
you understand me in part and misunderstand in another. I agree that going to court (for anything) is a good idea. Make your good faith arguments.
I am talking about lawyers who give advise to AVOID court/arrest/etc. They are out there and very open about it. Replace with any other non legal act and its that simple. People who are still confused WANT to be confused on it.

I'm still confused by Artist formerly known as Pie. First, your continued use of the phrase "non-legal" is carrying a lot of freight, as you appear to be conflating civil and criminal infractions (malum in se and malum prohibitum). Second, you aren't being specific, at all, as to what you are alleging, or what the fact pattern could be. Facts can make a huge difference. Third, ethical rules do matter- they are not "justifications." Rules regarding, inter alia, confidentiality. 

So let's take an easy example culled from your fear of undocumented individuals in America. A student from England has overstayed their student visa, and is currently working in a bar in New York City. She goes to an immigration attorney. What advise, if any, would it be acceptable, in your mind for this attorney to give? Why? Refer, if necessary, to relevant rules in your jurisdiction or the Model Rules.

Now, contrast that situation to this one- a business owner goes to an attorney regarding a tax issue. During the course of the conversation, the attorney learns that the business owner is non-compliant with a local ordinance (which is an entirely separate issue). To comply with this local ordinance (which only involves the spacing of his buildings on his property) would require millions and millions of dollars to rebuild, while his business could not operate, costing millions more. In your analysis, what can this attorney ethically do? Why? Refer, if necessary, to relevant rules in your jurisdiction or the Model Rules.

I'm really curious- after all, real life isn't always so neat. Now, if your argument was that immigration attorneys (but not others?) were lying in court, I would completely agree with you, but now I am even more confused as to what your point really is.