Why People Hate Lawyers (JAWM)

[Crimson Wife]

So in my FB feed, I see where a college friend of mine (who is a lawyer) "liked" the following post (bolding mine):

 

"Big congratulations to my good friend [name redacted] who just won a .23 blood draw DWI 2nd in [name redacted] County Criminal Court.
To her credit, Judge did the right thing & suppressed the blood given that the Officer relied "solely on Implied Consent" instead of getting a warrant. This was inconsistent with Villarreal & McNeely. client had translator for entire process but did not consent & yet state argued that he understood English perfectly. [name redacted] kicking ass & taking names!

 

Remember: never EVER consent!"

 

So someone was driving around at nearly THREE TIMES the legal limit and got off on a technicality. The accused is lucky that he/she did not kill or seriously injure anyone as the result of the reckless drunk driving. Next time he/she may not be so lucky. :sad:

 

I know everyone is entitled to a defense, but this should've been a "plea bargain to get the accused into rehab rather than jail" situation. Reckless drunk drivers should not be set free to continue being a menace to public safety. :cursing:

[Murphy101]

No, he got off bc the cops didn't do their job legally.

 

That's not a technically.

 

So I'm both pissed that some drunk could've killed someone AND that he got away with it because something basic wasn't done properly.

 

Also, I think it's unprofessional of the lawyer to post such things. Completely and totally tacky and unprofessional.

 

Is it even legal for him to post client details? I wonder if he got legal documents to give him permission or if it was implied in his being hired...

[Murphy101]

I don't hate lawyers or cops.

 

If they do their job legally and well.

[Rosie_0801]

I just met a barrister who cost his client another 30 to 50 grand.

 

Happily, all the others I've met remembered there was a child at the other end of the custody battle.

[SKL]

I never did understand how DUI works.  My granny's husband was caught driving drunk many times.  Normally the cops just locked his keys in his trunk so he couldn't drive home.  I don't think he ever did any time at all, even after they made the "mandatory jail time" rules, and it wasn't because he quit drinking.

 

Every time I go to traffic court, there are people there in court "again" for "another" DUI, but still never had any jail time, and they are still driving just like ever.

 

Whenever we hear of a deadly DUI accident, we hear the person has had xx previous DUIs.  Why they're still driving is apparently a silly question.

[maize]

No, he got off bc the cops didn't do their job legally.

 

That's not a technically.

 

So I'm both pissed that some drunk could've killed someone AND that he got away with it because something basic wasn't done properly.

 

Also, I think it's unprofessional of the lawyer to post such things. Completely and totally tacky and unprofessional.

 

Is it even legal for him to post client details? I wonder if he got legal documents to give him permission or if it was implied in his being hired...

I think it is common to post without identifying information. The cases are generally public anyway, and lawyers like to advertise their wins to prospective clients.

[Rosie_0801]

Whenever we hear of a deadly DUI accident, we hear the person has had xx previous DUIs.  Why they're still driving is apparently a silly question.

 

This has got to be my favourite very sensible question:

 

What did you all have for breakfast on the day X died of preventable causes unrelated to food poisoning?

[bettyandbob]

What I don't like is this lawyer posting on social media this way. Incredibly unprofessional.I have to wonder about ethics rules when I see behavior like that.

 

The lawyer in the case did his job. He did exactly what he is supposed to do in representing his client.

[SKL]

Was he posting his own case or just some random case he heard about?

[Joker]

I've seen something very similar posted on a childhood friend's own business FB page. He owns his own law firm and sometimes posts the same types of things but there is no information about the client (no name, age, etc.).

 

It does upset me but it's really not about the lawyer. It's about law enforcement not following the rules.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Joker

[Murphy101]

The problem is that jail doesn't cure addiction. Never has.

 

And the jails are full to over brimming as it is.

 

So put a drunk in jail knowing good and well it won't change one bit that he is a drunk.

 

Or put the robbery with intent to assualt guy in jail.

 

Bc there flat out isn't room for both.

 

It's a huge part of the reason plea deals are so popular. Truth is if defendants stopped taking pleas (and honestly in a lot of cases they should bc they are giving up a lot of rights and not always better off for it but they don't know that) there'd be no where to hold them all. Heck just getting a court date in some jurisdictions can take months and months. Due process and speedy trial by your peers be damned, there's just more legal problems than judges, courts, and jails. And that's with millions of cases being pled out before it ever shows up in court.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Murphy101

[Reefgazer]

While I agree with you that the accused needs treatment, the lawyer did his job for his client and the police screwed up theirs.

 

o in my FB feed, I see where a college friend of mine (who is a lawyer) "liked" the following post (bolding mine):

 

 

So someone was driving around at nearly THREE TIMES the legal limit and got off on a technicality. The accused is lucky that he/she did not kill or seriously injure anyone as the result of the reckless drunk driving. Next time he/she may not be so lucky. :sad:

 

I know everyone is entitled to a defense, but this should've been a "plea bargain to get the accused into rehab rather than jail" situation. Reckless drunk drivers should not be set free to continue being a menace to public safety. :cursing:

 

Edited March 30, 2016 by reefgazer

[Danestress]

The Supreme Court is pretty clear about the requirement of getting a warrant to draw blood without consent. It's the job of this attorney to protect his client's 4th amendment rights. So he did. I don't consider protection of my constitutional rights a 'technicality.'

 

The sad thing is that the cop could have gotten a warrant, even in the middle of the night, and the result may well have been different.

 

And I can't see how posting that a friend prevailed in that case is in any way unethical. Criminal arrests are public records and cases are generally heard in public forums. I have certainly never seen anyone complain when Prosecutors announce convictions.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Danestress

[Lady Florida.]

I didn't realize implied consent isn't the law in other states. In Florida simply by accepting a driver's license you give (imply) consent. As long as an officer has reasonable suspicion that you are under the influence, he can require you to take one or more tests (such as breath and blood tests). Refusal is an automatic one year license suspension the first time, and goes up each time you refuse, eventually leading to permanent revocation. Even if you weren't actually impaired, the refusal still gets you a suspension.

[Crimson Wife]

Was he posting his own case or just some random case he heard about?

I don't know the poster (it was just a post that my classmate "liked") but he was congratulating the winning lawyer. The client's name was not included. I deleted all the identifying details since this forum is public.

[Murphy101]

I didn't realize implied consent isn't the law in other states. In Florida simply by accepting a driver's license you give (imply) consent. As long as an officer has reasonable suspicion that you are under the influence, he can require you to take one or more tests (such as breath and blood tests). Refusal is an automatic one year license suspension the first time, and goes up each time you refuse, eventually leading to permanent revocation. Even if you weren't actually impaired, the refusal still gets you a suspension.

That should not be legal. Anywhere in America. Yikes.

[maize]

That should not be legal. Anywhere in America. Yikes.

Why? Driving on public roads is a privilege that comes with defined contractual obligations.

Edited March 30, 2016 by maize

[8circles]

I understand that legally, the police didn't follow the law.  So the judge ruled properly.

 

What bothers me about the situation is the pride that the client got off, given that it's pretty clear that they were DWI.  And the ending comment about never giving consent - that's pretty brazenly encouraging people to not do the right thing.

 

Sickens me.  That people DWI in the first place.  That people are encouraged to try to get away with it when caught.

[Ravin]

That should not be legal. Anywhere in America. Yikes.

It's legal because a driver's license is not a right and it's a civil penalty for not consenting to take it away.

 

I don't think any ethical rules were broken, but it was an incredibly tacky thing to post.

 

A good defense attorney holds the prosecution and law enforcement to the expected standards and procedures for getting evidence. At the same time, they are encouraging the client to get help for underlying problems, both to help at sentencing and to help reduce the chances the person will be back for SSDD regardless of the outcome in that case.

 

Criminal law is not a game show.

[sassenach]

That should not be legal. Anywhere in America. Yikes.

I disagree. You don't have to consent, you just can't refuse consent AND keep the PRIVILEGE of driving on the roads with the rest of us.

[Danestress]

I didn't realize implied consent isn't the law in other states. In Florida simply by accepting a driver's license you give (imply) consent. As long as an officer has reasonable suspicion that you are under the influence, he can require you to take one or more tests (such as breath and blood tests). Refusal is an automatic one year license suspension the first time, and goes up each time you refuse, eventually leading to permanent revocation. Even if you weren't actually impaired, the refusal still gets you a suspension.

There is a difference between suspending a license because of refusal to consent and using the results of a non consensual, warrant less blood test in a criminal trial.

 

In Villarreal, The Supreme Court rejected the state's argument that under Texas law, the defendant gave implied consent to having his blood drawn when he drove an automobile.

[Danestress]

And the ending comment about never giving consent - that's pretty brazenly encouraging people to not do the right thing.

 

 

Disagree. Sometimes consent is ok. But it's not wrong to refuse consent. Law enforcement can get the warrant they need if they make a proper showing. I tell my kids to refuse to consent to, for example, a routine search of their vehicle. My son is a cop and he doesn't really disagree. Why would I let anyone search my home or vehicle without good enough cause that they could obtain a warrant? Edited March 30, 2016 by Danestress

[Murphy101]

I disagree. You don't have to consent, you just can't refuse consent AND keep the PRIVILEGE of driving on the roads with the rest of us.

That's nuts. It's consent under duress. IMO. Which obviously doesn't matter to the law in Florida.

 

The concept of forfeiting constitutional rights to obtain "privileges" most of us do need in order to function in society is categorically wrong imnsho.

[Crimson Wife]

What is wrong is our courts privileging a foreigner driving at 3 times the legal blood alcohol limit over the rights of U.S. citizens to go about their business without having their safety threatened by said foreigner. I seriously doubt this is what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

[8circles]

Disagree. Sometimes consent is ok. But it's not wrong to refuse consent. Law enforcement can get the warrant they need if they make a proper showing. I tell my kids to refuse to consent to, for example, a routine search of their vehicle. My son is a cop and he doesn't really disagree. Why would I let anyone search my home or vehicle without good enough cause that they could obtain a warrant?

 

The comment was

 

Remember: never EVER consent!"

 

I think that's morally wrong.

[Joker]

What is wrong is our courts privileging a foreigner driving at 3 times the legal blood alcohol limit over the rights of U.S. citizens to go about their business without having their safety threatened by said foreigner. I seriously doubt this is what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

So, you wouldn't be that upset if it was just another US citizen doing it? I'm so confused by this post of yours. US citizens definitely drive drunk. That's not something only those outside of this country do.

 

FTR, my dad and brother were killed in a car accident caused by a US citizen. I wouldn't be more upset about it if the person behind the wheel wasn't one.

[Murphy101]

What is wrong is our courts privileging a foreigner driving at 3 times the legal blood alcohol limit over the rights of U.S. citizens to go about their business without having their safety threatened by said foreigner. I seriously doubt this is what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

He wasn't given more privledges than any citizen. Everyone has the same right of consent or denial of consent to search and seizure without a warrant. The cops didn't do their job correctly. If they had, he would have suffered or not suffered same as any citizen.

[eternalsummer]

I think she suspects the defendant was foreign because he was a non-English speaker (which is why his lawyer said he was unable to give implied consent,  I think).

 

Other than that and this:
"The accused is lucky that he/she did not kill or seriously injure anyone as the result of the reckless drunk driving,"

I kind of don't agree with the OP, so I am going to abstain from posting in this JAWM thread :)

 

I will agree with the OP in that impaired driving is a bad thing and for the most part the justice system seems to be okay with giving people more and more chances to do the same bad thing; however, I think it goes way beyond drugs/alcohol impairment.  I've been in a car with my sister when she was texting and I think she was more of a menace than someone with a few beers, honestly.

[Murphy101]

The comment was

 

I think that's morally wrong.

Nope. Never consent and always have legal representation present when saying anything to anyone in the legal system is just legal smarts.

 

And the thing is, they had everything they needed to legally obtain and use the blood test. They just failed to do so.

[livetoread]

I briefly dated an attorney who started our second date by saying something similar - that he had gotten off a drunk client on some technicality. I was a teen drug and alcohol abuse counselor at the time. Our discussion got pretty lively!

[pehp]

Holy smokes. As an attorney, who is friends with many attorneys, I have never, not once, ever, NEVER, seen someone post anything about a case/client on Facebook.  The actual details and content of the situation aside (an attorney must act as an advocate, whether they like their client or the situation or not--which is one reason I steered clear of certain types of work), this is so supremely unprofessional that I can hardly stand it.  Wow. 

 

 

[Murphy101]

Holy smokes. As an attorney, who is friends with many attorneys, I have never, not once, ever, NEVER, seen someone post anything about a case/client on Facebook. The actual details and content of the situation aside (an attorney must act as an advocate, whether they like their client or the situation or not--which is one reason I steered clear of certain types of work), this is so supremely unprofessional that I can hardly stand it. Wow.

It really bothers me.

 

I know it is public record.

 

But so is who is in my family and where we live.

 

If someone I hired posted to FB (name redacted) in this county has successful remodeled her home (I wish!) in the (name redacted of subdivision).

 

I'd still be really bothered. There is more than enough info there to fit names and addresses to records.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Murphy101

[Ravin]

So, you wouldn't be that upset if it was just another US citizen doing it? I'm so confused by this post of yours. US citizens definitely drive drunk. That's not something only those outside of this country do.

 

FTR, my dad and brother were killed in a car accident caused by a US citizen. I wouldn't be more upset about it if the person behind the wheel wasn't one.

You also assume they are a foreigner if they need a translator. The person could be Puerto Rican or Navajo or deaf...and we give equal justice in our courts, at least in theory, we don't set up a double standard that says if you aren't a citizen you don't get due process. Would you really want a system like that?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

What is wrong is our courts privileging a foreigner driving at 3 times the legal blood alcohol limit over the rights of U.S. citizens to go about their business without having their safety threatened by said foreigner. I seriously doubt this is what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

 

Wait...so your issue is that the defendant is a "foreigner"?

 

Our Founding Fathers would probably be too enthralled by indoor plumbing, the internet, and the abundance of horseless carriages to have many cares to give about this matter.  But in general, I would imagine many would expect agents of the government to follow the law whether the person being investigated is a citizen or not.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The comment was

 

 

I think that's morally wrong.

 

I am curious - why?

 

As there are countless cases where the police/investigators/prosecutors have had less than pure motives when searching/questioning a suspect, why is it immoral to protect one's legal rights?  No matter what someone investigating you says, they are NOT working in your best interests at any point.

[8circles]

I am curious - why?

 

As there are countless cases where the police/investigators/prosecutors have had less than pure motives when searching/questioning a suspect, why is it immoral to protect one's legal rights?  No matter what someone investigating you says, they are NOT working in your best interests at any point.

 

In the context of a so-called professsional posting of *pride* in someone getting away with a crime, posting such a comment no longer becomes good advice, but an encouragement to get away with something.

[Lady Florida.]

That should not be legal. Anywhere in America. Yikes.

 

Why not? Driving is not a right. It's a privilege and that privilege comes with responsibilities.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

In the context of a so-called professsional posting of *pride* in someone getting away with a crime, posting such a comment no longer becomes good advice, but an encouragement to get away with something.

 

How is "never consent", which is standard legal advice, an encouragement to get away with something?  Attorneys have an ethical obligation to advise clients to not break the law, but advising someone to "not consent" does not presume the client is guilty. 

[Ravin]

Personally, I don't brag about work on FB. And if I was going to brag about getting a client off, I would probably mention one who deserved the outcome.

 

I am proud of seeing people's rights vindicated even when they did wrong themselves, but in some case seeing justice done means a criminal defendant gets off when they actually deserve it.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Ravin

[maize]

What is wrong is our courts privileging a foreigner driving at 3 times the legal blood alcohol limit over the rights of U.S. citizens to go about their business without having their safety threatened by said foreigner. I seriously doubt this is what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

Our laws and rights apply equally to foreigners and citizens. The citizenship status of the defendant (which we have no information about) is entirely irrelevant.

 

Should the guy have been driving drunk? Nope.

 

Should the police have followed legal procedures to obtain consent? Yep.

 

Should the lawyer have defended his client to the best of his ability in accordance with the laws? Yep.

 

Should the judge have ruled in favor of the defendant's legal rights? Yep.

 

Should the lawyer have posted as he did? Ah well, most here are in agreement that doing so was in poor taste, but as far as I can tell it was not illegal or indisputably unethical.

Edited March 30, 2016 by maize

[8circles]

How is "never consent", which is standard legal advice, an encouragement to get away with something?  Attorneys have an ethical obligation to advise clients to not break the law, but advising someone to "not consent" does not presume the client is guilty. 

 

I think it's about context as I've already said.  I'm not sure what else you want me to explain... but I guess I'll try.

 

The specific example we're talking about is about someone who was, in *fact*, DWI.  The police screwed it up.  Any comment after that becomes seen in the context of the specific example.  Like: Someone broke the law & got away with it because they didn't consent & the police broke the rules.  Remember, don't give consent when this happens to you, because the police might screw-up & then you'd get away with it, too.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think it's about context as I've already said.  I'm not sure what else you want me to explain... but I guess I'll try.

 

The specific example we're talking about is about someone who was, in *fact*, DWI.  The police screwed it up.  Any comment after that becomes seen in the context of the specific example.  Like: Someone broke the law & got away with it because they didn't consent & the police broke the rules.  Remember, don't give consent when this happens to you, because the police might screw-up & then you'd get away with it, too.

 

I see what you are getting at, but I still can't get to where standard legal advice is morally wrong.

[SKL]

You can refuse consent all you want, but I hope the people saying this still think it's more important to drive sober than to find ways out of a DUI.

[SKL]

I'd never post anything about a client on facebook.  There have been a couple times I've mentioned professional frustrations here, but I try to do so in the vaguest possible way.  I agree it is unprofessional.

 

That said, I have some facebook friends who post about unnamed customers / clients at times, and usually it doesn't bug me.  I still wouldn't do it, though.

[Ravin]

You can also make the argument that if someone is that drunk, they aren't capable of consenting to anything. The logic of implied consent to blood alcohol testing through invasive means is as solid as the logic of implied consent to sexual intercourse because you told the person you want to have sex before you started drinking.

 

If that makes your head spin...there's a reason to hate lawyers. ;)

[Lady Florida.]

There is a difference between suspending a license because of refusal to consent and using the results of a non consensual, warrant less blood test in a criminal trial.

 

In Villarreal, The Supreme Court rejected the state's argument that under Texas law, the defendant gave implied consent to having his blood drawn when he drove an automobile.

 

 

That's nuts. It's consent under duress. IMO. Which obviously doesn't matter to the law in Florida.

 

The concept of forfeiting constitutional rights to obtain "privileges" most of us do need in order to function in society is categorically wrong imnsho.

 

There have been mixed rulings and a case from Minnesota is going to be heard by the Supreme Court. The difference in rulings seems to be whether or not refusal is considered a crime. In Florida you most certainly can refuse, but you will lose the privilege of driving. You won't be charged with a crime. In states where it's a crime to refuse, the law has generally not been held up.

 

You are signing a contract when you accept a license. The terms are clear. There's no hidden clause about DUI tests. Anyone who takes a driver's ed course or in any way studies Florida driving laws in order to be able to pass the test will learn that rule. Again, by accepting a Florida driver's license you are agreeing to take a test when asked, and you are confirming that you know the consequence for refusal is suspension of your license. No one has a constitutional right to a driver's license. It's a contract between you and the state. You sign your name to the license and you are signing that contract. There is no duress.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Lady Florida

[SKL]

This thread reminds me of a friend's drunk driving ordeal.  You have to know this person though.  She never drank, ever.  Never ever touched the stuff in her life.  But her driving was .... interesting.  So one day she was out driving with friends and a cop decided she was weaving.  He decided she needed to take a drunk test.  Everyone in the car found this hilarious.  This made the cop even more suspicious.  My friend was laughing so hard that she couldn't breathe enough into the breathalyzer.  Somehow she managed to talk the cop out of dragging her in.  :P

[SKL]

You can also make the argument that if someone is that drunk, they aren't capable of consenting to anything. The logic of implied consent to blood alcohol testing through invasive means is as solid as the logic of implied consent to sexual intercourse because you told the person you want to have sex before you started drinking.

 

If that makes your head spin...there's a reason to hate lawyers. ;)

 

OK but to argue that, wouldn't you have to stipulate that you were driving drunk?  And if so, then would the DUI still stand even if they threw out he test results?

[Danestress]

1. Unless Florida recently changed the law, it is a misdemeanor the second time you refuse to take a breathalyzer.

 

2. Not sure if you are responding this or not, but the Supreme Court has ruled that drawing blood without a warrant and without consent in a dui stop is a violation of the 4th amendment and the evidence is inadmissible. Are you somehow saying that isn't applicable to Florida?

 

 

There have been mixed rulings and a case from Minnesota is going to be heard by the Supreme Court. The difference in rulings seems to be whether or not refusal is considered a crime. In Florida you most certainly can refuse, but you will lose the privilege of driving. You won't be charged with a crime. In states where it's a crime to refuse, the law has generally not been held up.

 

You are signing a contract when you accept a license. The terms are clear. There's no hidden clause about DUI tests. Anyone who takes a driver's ed course or in any way studies Florida driving laws in order to be able to pass the test will learn that rule. Again, by accepting a Florida driver's license you are agreeing to take a test when asked, and you are confirming that you know the consequence for refusal is suspension of your license. No one has a constitutional right to a driver's license. It's a contract between you and the state. You sign your name to the license and you are signing that contract. There is no duress.

[Danestress]

OK but to argue that, wouldn't you have to stipulate that you were driving drunk? And if so, then would the DUI still stand even if they threw out he test results?

That would be a fun law school exam question. Driver consents to blood test. Blood drawn. Driver claims to lack capacity to consent because he was soooooo drunk, and argues that blood alcohol evidence is inadmissible.