Of clients and conscience
This morning I was in court and watched a guy ask the court to allow him to sell off part of a structured settlement. He had been in a bad car accident several years before, and as part of the settlement he received monthly payments and several significant lump-sum payments. It turns out that the guy had sold off parts of this settlement nearly a dozen times before, all to pay off debts or to start up new ill-conceived businesses ventures. Ever time he sold off part of the structured settlement, this guy got about 30-40% of the current value of the payments — a terrible deal by any definition.
I am somewhat familiar with the attorney for the company that buys up these settlements. And with the economy in the tank, I’ve seen him in court pretty frequently with people selling off lots of money in order to pay their bills. The attorney is fairly pleasant, but I don’t like him much because of what he does. To my mind, his entire legal practice revolves around taking advantage of ill-informed and short-sighted people. And lamentably, the laws governing these financial institutions in my state don’t provide much protection for the consumers.
I got to thinking about how conscience can conflict with clients. One of the dilemmas an attorney occasionally faces is whether to accept a client with a reputation, history, or interests that run counter to the attorney’s personal morality. This is often a morality based in religious beliefs, but non-religious attorneys also face moral dilemmas. As I watched the proceeding this morning, I realized that I wouldn’t want to represent a company like the structured settlement buyer. I don’t think my conscience would let me facilitate what I believe to be predatory transactions.
A friend of mine is very interested in First Amendment law, but after much thought he turned down a chance to work on an interesting Free Speech case because the client was a strip club. He believed that the operators of the club were entitled to the same Free Speech rights as you or I, but he ultimately decided he couldn’t work on the case. This sort of dilemma is experienced by many Christian or religious legal practitioners. There may even be a few Mormon-specific moral dilemmas. For example, given the LDS Church’s position on tobacco and alcohol, an LDS attorney might not feel capable of representing a cigarette or liquor company.
Similar moral dilemmas may arise in certain types of law. I’ve heard a lot of people say that their conscience wouldn’t let them work in criminal defense. It may be surprising, but I don’t think my conscience would prevent me from representing a criminal defendant. I’ve actually worked on criminal cases on both the prosecution and the defense side, and even guilty defendants deserve effective counsel. In a way, I would have a larger crisis of conscience doing structured settlement deals like the one I saw today than representing an accused child molester, because at least representing the accused molester serves the broader justice system.
I’m interested to hear from other people on this subject. Are there certain areas of law or clients that would conflict with your personal morality? Have you ever turned down a client or a transaction as a matter of conscience?
Sometimes you have to get past the moral conflict with a prospective client and see the bigger impact the case may have. Attorney Anthony Griffin’s representation of the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan provides a great example of such a situation.
http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/fall00/oneil.html
Peter R.: “I’ve heard a lot of people say that their conscience wouldn’t let them work in criminal defense. It may be surprising, but I don’t think my conscience would prevent me from representing a criminal defendant. I’ve actually worked on criminal cases on both the prosecution and the defense side, and even guilty defendants deserve effective counsel.”
I agree with that 1000%, and I say that as one of the more pro-police, pro-prosecution folks you’ll ever run across. If I were a prosecutor, I wouldn’t want to “win” a case just because some defense attorney did a half-a … um, I mean, a half-HEARTED … yeah, that’s it! … ;D job of defending his or her client: the only thing that does is build in a claim on appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.
If I were a prosecutor, I would want a defense attorney to hold me to my burden of proof. If I were a defense attorney and I won an acquittal for a client who’s likely guilty, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. (I’ve corresponded with one LDS attorney whose response to the moral “dilemma” of winning an acquittal for a client who may have been guilty was, “What a rush!” ;D) Maybe legal ethics aren’t perfect, but I think that by-and-large, Mormon attorneys wouldn’t do their profession any favors by flouting those ethics in their efforts to live the Gospel.
And by the way, companies that offer lump sums for structured settlements should have some truth in their advertising: “Tired of getting a bunch of little golden eggs? Don’t worry! We’ll help you kill the Golden Goose!” ;D Maybe in the most extraordinary of cases in which there is a genuine short-term need for a larger sum of money, they offer a valuable service. Otherwise, they’re no different from some/many credit card companies, payday lenders, home refi outfits, and so on. Most of the time, the “need” is actually a want, and the timing simply involves sating the voraciousness inherent to instant gratification.