New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
i have a legal query....any legal beagles in the org?? can a solicitors DEFENDING admit at any time that "well maybe they(the company im defending) were in the wrong slightly" or do they have to 100% defend irrespective of proven lies etc?
if for example they say
"well yes they were wrong for doing that BUT..."
Thats not how its done is it?
They cannot i imagine admit ANY guilt or wrongdoing
am i correct y'all?? | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
I can't follow you | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
acually nor can i rereading that
i shouldnt post when im whacked | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lol try again later | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
No a defense attorney cannot admit guilt for their client. The only reason to do so would be as a defense in which they acting for a purpose greater than the law.
(Yes, they did break the law as charged, but only did so to save a life.) I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
thanks!! im in for a big ass pay out!!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
What country is this in?
In the uk, it would depend in what context the statement was made. If it was made informally as some sort of off the cuff comment then it would not bind their client. It also depends on how it was said - eg: they might have meant "of course, I think they are guilty, but those are not my instructions/you haven't got the evidence to prove it etc" or words to that effect. If, however, an admission was made formally and on instructions, in open court and through counsel, then it would bind their client. That would be an admission to some part of the evidence, and that admission might then lead to a finding of guilt. Strictly speaking, however, a plea needs to be entered by the accused personally when arraigned. NB: all the above refers to uk criminal law [Edited 11/11/11 3:17am] [Edited 11/11/11 4:17am] Susan - turn the guitar up a little bit.... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SUPRMAN said:
No a defense attorney cannot admit guilt for their client. The only reason to do so would be as a defense in which they acting for a purpose greater than the law.
(Yes, they did break the law as charged, but only did so to save a life.) Well, in most jurisdictions that would afford them a defence to most offences, which would have the effect of maintaining a not guilty stance. It would be what is known as an equivocal plea, and as such, would be recorded by the court as a plea of not guilty Susan - turn the guitar up a little bit.... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Of course he can! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
How so? A solicitor is in England. My response is based on American law. It may not be applicable. I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
? Please explain. One cannot, unless it is an affirmative defense, say that one's client is guilty as charged. A client can admit a guilty plea but a guilty plea doesn't get you a trial. If one admits guilt, what is a solicitor defending? I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Right, so they can plead guilty! In common law systems this usually happens when a plea bargain has been made, waiving the rights to a trial. In civil law systems it's also sometimes possible to make some sort of a deal in some lighter cases, but normally a confession or other admission of guilt won't stop a trial from still taking place, in which it will be treated as regular evidence. If there is little to no chance of winning a trial, in most jurisdictions pleading guilty could also lead to less sentencing.
[Edited 11/11/11 8:03am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator
|
Depends on the laws of the country you live in. 
Ohh purple joy oh purple bliss oh purple rapture! REAL MUSIC by REAL MUSICIANS - Prince "I kind of wish there was a reason for Prince to make the site crash more" ~~ Ben |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
moderatorTremolina said:
Right, so they can plead guilty! In common law systems this usually happens when a plea bargain has been made, waiving the rights to a trial. In civil law systems it's also sometimes possible to make some sort of a deal in some lighter cases, but normally a confession or other admission of guilt won't stop a trial from still taking place, in which it will be treated as regular evidence. If there is little to no chance of winning a trial, in most jurisdictions pleading guilty could also lead to less sentencing.
[Edited 11/11/11 8:03am] In England and Wales a plea to the charge or indictment must come from the accused personally and must not be entered by his solicitor or barrister. If they purport to plead on behalf of the accused, then the conviction will be quashed or the Court of Appeal will issue a writ of venire de novo (ie: order a retrial). If you want to look it up, the authorities are R v. Ellis[1973] 57 Cr App R 571 and R v. Williams[1978] QB 373 Susan - turn the guitar up a little bit.... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Are we talking about the same thing here? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I don't understand what's being asked either, maybe you need to rewrite /reword it.
In the US we have something called, "Attorney Client Privilege". The short version.....
The privilege provices that the client.. has the privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between the client and the lawyers. The general rule, the attorney-client privilege protects, and allows, the client and the holder of the privilege to prevent disclosure of all confidential communications between the client and lawyer in order to facilitate candid and open discussions so the lawyer can provide appropriate representation and protect the clients interests. It is the client's privilege... to give up that protection... to "wavie" it.
As Tremolina has pointed out clients can plead or admit guilt, through their represenative / their lawyer for reasons such as plea deals and alike.
What a lawyer can't do is, knowingly counsel a client to engage in criminal or fraudulent conduct, but he or she may counsel a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.
=========================
[Edited 11/11/11 13:31pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
What i should have asked was...can an employer happily discuss your family infront of colleagues eg living situations/custody of children WITHOUT any permission?
i surely think not.
in a nutshell i have just taken one of the worlds largest companies under NZ law.
i dropped my lawyer and im doing it myself under the NZ employment Relations Authority.
i cant say much hence my apaprent vagueness!
its quite exciting but alot of work! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
If it's public knowledge, why can't it be discussed? Why would an employer be barred but not a relation? Why would someone need permission to discuss someone's family/living arrangement? I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
an attorney has to represent his clients best interests and do so zeolouslyhere in america. However, sometime, admissions of some things are essential in proving the the things that are not applicable. Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian, any more than standing in a garage makes you a car. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
yeah im not really being too concise
basicly a boss being a complete cunt and breaking about every employment law then goes onto to start discussing personal family matters with insinuations which then falls into the realms of constructive dismissal......
alpha males....go figure | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Still too vague. If he is breaking every employment law, that's grounds for suing. If he offends because he expressed his opinion on somone's family life, that may not be. How did he acquire the information regarding an employees personal life? If the employee gave the boss that information, he is free to express his opinion. Whether he can discipline or fire an individual based on information regarding personal life goes back to employement law or slander. I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
i'll let you know how it al goes in december........
they are being forced into mediation to make a settlement | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I think they can admit it - didn't Conrad Murrays team just base thier whole defence on "yeah he fucked up a bit" [Edited 11/12/11 14:42pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |