HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A Question for Lawyers on...

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 07:36 PM

A Question for Lawyers on DU

As y'all know, at some point in both civil and criminal defense practice, you often end up having to have "the conversation" with your client.

You know... "the conversation" in which you use a lot of gentle euphemisms and tactful terminology, but it essentially comes down to:

"Do you want to look stupid? Or do you want to look criminal?"

And then gently explain that, while things don't look real good, and there's likely to be some stuff the client isn't gonna like having to deal with, either way, the stuff that'll come based on looking stupid will definitely last a shorter time and do less horrible long-term damage than looking criminal.

As in "Either way you're f*%&#d, but if you go with "stupid" you get lube."

THAT conversation.

So, tell me this: Do ya think >Redacted<'s legal staff are prepping for having that conversation?

And... how would you like to be them?

Because I don't think it's gonna go well.

curiously,
Bright

10 replies, 2333 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply A Question for Lawyers on DU (Original post)
TygrBright Jul 2017 OP
The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2017 #1
unblock Jul 2017 #2
hunter Jul 2017 #3
grantcart Jul 2017 #4
unblock Jul 2017 #6
Amaryllis Jul 2017 #7
grantcart Jul 2017 #5
gratuitous Jul 2017 #8
NightWatcher Jul 2017 #9
VermontKevin Jul 2017 #10

Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 07:50 PM

1. Well, there was the time

I represented a very nice young woman who was accused of embezzling money from her employer. She swore she didn't do it, and she seemed quite believable. But then we got records from her bank showing she had deposited money into her checking account in the exact amounts and on the exact dates as the money that had gone missing. She insisted it was just a coincidence, but I recall pointing out to her that whatever alternative explanation she might have would never be believed so we would really have to discuss a plea deal. She got it at that point. I don't remember exactly what we finally agreed to (it was a long time ago); it might have been an Alford plea. Since she had no previous record IIRC she didn't have to go to jail but had to make restitution and was on probation for awhile. The come-to-Jesus talk was difficult but she finally admitted she was guilty.

And there was a friend who had a client in a personal injury case who had a pretty good claim, but she was so personally awful and unpleasant - whiny, entitled, demanding - that a jury would hate her and probably wouldn't award her what her claim was worth, if anything. So my friend came up with a series of posters illustrating what he called "The Doomsday Verdict" - worst case scenario, that she could end up with the jury finding more than 50% negligence on her part, so no recovery, plus she'd owe costs. I still remember those posters. She didn't want to settle but he finally persuaded her.

I don't know if the attorneys for Dolt 45 are having any such conversations yet since most of them seem to be True Believers who represented him in his real estate deals. And I'm guessing Himself would be very hard to persuade. He has to be one of the worst clients ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 07:51 PM

2. If it comes close to that, there will be a deal.

It will be a great deal, a really really great deal. The best.

Actually, the ford-pardons-Nixon deal is looking really good right now. Republicans would be lucky if that is enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 08:04 PM

3. Where are we going to find a Gerald Ford?

Today's Republicans are gangsters and grifters, without a shred of decency or honor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 08:09 PM

4. Mitch Daniels is a likely candidate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 08:31 PM

6. Honor is not available to them in any scenario

Well, except the one scenario they'll never do, which would be to appoint Hillary veep and let her become president after a resignation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 10, 2017, 03:50 PM

7. Bigly true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Sun Jul 9, 2017, 08:12 PM

5. Federal prosecutors have a 99% conviction rate

Guys on Mueller's team probably have 100% conviction, be a short talk (but I am not a lawyer)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Mon Jul 10, 2017, 04:11 PM

8. Amateur criminals aren't a real smart bunch

People who dabble in law-breaking - this goes for perpetrators and lawyers - often have no idea what the implications of their actions or admissions are. When Michael Deaver (formerly Reagan's chief of staff) was busted for influence peddling, his first attorney was from some white shoe law firm that didn't do criminal law. The attorney claimed that Deaver shouldn't be criminally prosecuted because he had a drinking problem, and often didn't remember what he had said or done. I thought, "Hoo boy, there's only about a million guys sitting in jail right this minute who committed their special crimes while drunk. Let's see how this bullshit excuse plays out." After the kerfuffle died down, Deaver got an experienced criminal attorney to represent him.

A friend of mine who does some criminal work had a client who told her that while he did indeed run that light, the collision was really the other guy's fault, see, because if the other guy had just been paying attention and keeping a proper lookout, he would have seen that there was no way the accused was going to stop in time. See? My friend then asked him, "So, your defense is that you should be able to drive any way you want, running lights and so forth, and it's up to everyone else to look out for you?" Well, when you put it like that . . .

I suspect there are going to be any number of "Well, when you put it like that . . ." conversations going on with some folks in the Trump administration. There will probably also be a fair number of conversations that feature "But I didn't know any better!" excuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Mon Jul 10, 2017, 04:15 PM

9. The trump clan are the worst bunch of criminal defendants I've seen

They lie when it's not necessary and easily disproven.

They refuse to shut up.

They do not act on behalf of their own best interests.

They are egomaniacs and think they are above the rules.

I don't care how much money they've paying, I would not want to be their atty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TygrBright (Original post)

Mon Jul 10, 2017, 04:20 PM

10. You have a frank discussion with the client about what the government can reasonably

 

prove in a court of law. And what you just cannot make go away.

This is what I mean:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread