Three rulings from court cases are cited in this paper which examines the problems of deciding whether to keep a client's confidentiality or to bow to the legal ramifications of criminal intent. Included particularly are attorneys, with quotes and citations.This paper has five pages and five sources listed in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: D0_MBlaw1.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
confessions or discussions with their representative is guaranteed by law. But, are there times in which this confidentiality must be violated? If it is done, then what future effect might
this have on client/attorney interactions? In the movie, Justice For All, Al Pacino plays a defense attorney who has been practicing for some time. Hes built up a good
reputation and has a healthy case load. Hes one of those rare lawyers who believes in the judicial system and wants to help people. An example of this is his
willingness to spend a night in jail on a contempt charge rather than allow a judge to ignore an important piece of evidence in the case. However, all of his
ethics are called into question when he is asked to defend someone who is accused of rape. From the outset, Pacinos character does not like his client. However, he is
not there to like or dislike, only to represent, as he is reminded. At the end of the movie, unlike real life, Pacino makes a statement about the outrage of
a lawyers ethical dilemma in defending someone that he/she knows is guilty. On the one hand, a lawyer is hired to defend his client. Right or wrong, good or
evil, guilty or innocent. This is because the Constitution guarantees every man and woman to their day in court and it also guarantees the defendant the right to face their
accusers in a court of law. The system is not perfect, it can be said (and it has been said), but the letter of the law and not the intent
of the law is what a lawyer is there to protect and offer the American public, not their own biases or beliefs about a persons guilt or innocence. To place