Anonymous wrote:http://www.newyorklegalethics.com/how-to-deal-with-the-truly-repugnant-client/

Looks like she could have declined to represent him even if court appointed, at least in NY. I assume most states allow for this

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I read, she created a story about the victim (a child)--implying that the child "asked for it"...........it sounded like she went beyond what was necessary for someone that was guilty. She I=may have had a responsibility to defend the assailant--but she did not have the right to make up a story.

The case never went to trial. You don't have the right to make up stories either.

Clinton had a choice to make: herself or this kid. She chose herself.

Actually, she chose her client. The correct choice for a lawyer.

For a lawyer with a loose moral code, yes. As you can see in this thread, other professionals would choose a different path. Comes down to character. Clinton's has, at least, been consistently bad. I'll give her points for staying true-to-self.

Anonymous wrote:

Well, it's nice that you had the option. I would assume most attorneys don't. And they do have to take a little oath to uphold the Constitution too. You know, the one with the 6th Amendment?

another poster: It sounds like she went beyond her responsibility to defend the guy. And, she especially didn't need to find so much humor in it -as she demonstrated in the interview.. Bizarre.--especially coming from someone who says all victims should be believe.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I read, she created a story about the victim (a child)--implying that the child "asked for it"...........it sounded like she went beyond what was necessary for someone that was guilty. She I=may have had a responsibility to defend the assailant--but she did not have the right to make up a story.

The case never went to trial. You don't have the right to make up stories either.

Clinton had a choice to make: herself or this kid. She chose herself.

Actually, she chose her client. The correct choice for a lawyer.

For a lawyer with a loose moral code, yes. As you can see in this thread, other professionals would choose a different path. Comes down to character. Clinton's has, at least, been consistently bad. I'll give her points for staying true-to-self.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I read, she created a story about the victim (a child)--implying that the child "asked for it"...........it sounded like she went beyond what was necessary for someone that was guilty. She I=may have had a responsibility to defend the assailant--but she did not have the right to make up a story.

The case never went to trial. You don't have the right to make up stories either.

Clinton had a choice to make: herself or this kid. She chose herself.

Actually, she chose her client. The correct choice for a lawyer.

For a lawyer with a loose moral code, yes. As you can see in this thread, other professionals would choose a different path. Comes down to character. Clinton's has, at least, been consistently bad. I'll give her points for staying true-to-self.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I read, she created a story about the victim (a child)--implying that the child "asked for it"...........it sounded like she went beyond what was necessary for someone that was guilty. She I=may have had a responsibility to defend the assailant--but she did not have the right to make up a story.

The case never went to trial. You don't have the right to make up stories either.

Clinton had a choice to make: herself or this kid. She chose herself.

Actually, she chose her client. The correct choice for a lawyer.

For a lawyer with a loose moral code, yes. As you can see in this thread, other professionals would choose a different path. Comes down to character. Clinton's has, at least, been consistently bad. I'll give her points for staying true-to-self.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I read, she created a story about the victim (a child)--implying that the child "asked for it"...........it sounded like she went beyond what was necessary for someone that was guilty. She I=may have had a responsibility to defend the assailant--but she did not have the right to make up a story.

The case never went to trial. You don't have the right to make up stories either.

Clinton had a choice to make: herself or this kid. She chose herself.

Actually, she chose her client. The correct choice for a lawyer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did Clinton take the case voluntarily or was she appointed by the court?

In "Living History," Clinton wrote that the criminal court judge appointed her, and that she "couldn't very well refuse the judge's request." The 2008 Newsday story quotes then-Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson who refers to her as being "appointed by the Circuit Court of Washington County." However, in the newly-released audio tapes Clinton says a prosecutor for the case asked to take the case "as a favor to him."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/hillary-clinton-dogged-by-1975-rape-case/

Women's advocate, my ass.

Anonymous wrote:Did Clinton take the case voluntarily or was she appointed by the court?

In "Living History," Clinton wrote that the criminal court judge appointed her, and that she "couldn't very well refuse the judge's request." The 2008 Newsday story quotes then-Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson who refers to her as being "appointed by the Circuit Court of Washington County." However, in the newly-released audio tapes Clinton says a prosecutor for the case asked to take the case "as a favor to him."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/hillary-clinton-dogged-by-1975-rape-case/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The best case scenario is to refuse to represent the client on moral grounds. But sometimes the court is stuck, and the prosecutor needs someone to serve as defense counsel to get the conviction.

In that situation, you take the case and provide barely adequate defense. Try hard to get the client to plead to a heavy sentence; the judge and prosecutor will love you for saving time and money--and they'll pay you back.

The client, like just about all arrestees, doesn't deserve a zealous defense. Go through the motions. Make the arguments so the habeas people can't claim IAC, but do everything with tone and body language to show your client is a snake.

Make one quick trip to the prison to visit the client. Otherwise, take another couple of trips at times you know the jail won't make the client available. Don't seek any experts. No mitigation, or at most get a bozo who's easy to refute and humiliate.

Finally, hammer people like this child rapist at the SYSTEMIC level. Oppose public defender funding at every opportunity. DQ anyone with defense background for a judgeship. Portray court-appointed attorneys as wasteful; cut their compensation at every turn. On the Federal level, ask Congress to mandate abandonment of Brady rules on evidence.

Hillary took the case to do a favor, but she didn't atone for her work. That's going to be her downfall.

I'm not an attorney, but please tell me this is a sarcastic post and restore my last shred of faith in America.

Ironically, this approach would get the defendant's conviction thrown out for inadequate assistance of counsel.

Nope, you'd be doing just enough to avoid IAC. Sighs, cold body language, and recoiling from the client don't enter the record.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

All states don't list the particulars, but several articles mention the ability of lawyers to recuse themselves from repugnant cases on moral grounds (yes I know one of the first things law school teaches you is the difference between morals and ethics). Maybe SC doesn't allow for this, or maybe you took the case to avoid the potential blowback. I did leave a job (I'm a surgeon btw) because I was asked to do things that were ethically fine but morally (IMO) wrong.

Hillary Clinton in this and several other instances has shown she lacks morals. Trump is worse in many ways. It is a travesty that we are forced to choose between two reprehensible people to lead this country.