This is my last post on legal ethics for a while, because it’s clogging the Corner, I don’t have much more to say and, most importantly, because I have to wash my dog. And, no, that’s not a euphemism for anything.

Still, I’ve clearly hit a nerve among lawyers trying to kill the hours between now and Thanksgiving, so maybe I’ll come back to this later.

Anyway, here’s an email from reader, though it’s only the first half. The second half goes on to complain about conservatives turning a blind eye to bogus testimony. Interesting subject (and I do think the FBI’s handling of the bullet testing thing is a real outrage) but not really on point. He writes:

I’ll let other lawyers go into a discussion of the
substance, but I will say that your post was the legal
equivalent of saying “you can’t punt on forth down,
it’s just wrong!”
You say “If I were wrongly imprisoned for life and
there was a person who knew the truth but refused to
testify because he’d lose his job, I wouldn’t care
much at all — whether he was a doctor, plumber or
lawyer. ‘So lose your job, this is my life,’ would be
my response.”
Is this really the basis of a rational argument (maybe
the lawyer didn’t testify for you because you had such
a bad attitude toward him, did you consider that?)?
“If I was financially ruined because some banker said
I couldn’t withdraw an extra $100,000 when I need it,
I’d say ‘this is my life you’re wrecking’”. A
statement of your emotional response, no matter how
sincere, is not an argument…..

Me: I fail to see how my argument or my response are remotely “irrational.” Imagine the lawyer is a plumber. Imagine he knows I’m innocent of a murder I’ve been convicted for. The plumber will lose his job if he comes forward for whatever reason (maybe the real murderer is the brother of the head of the plumber’s union). Is it really so irrational for me to say, “So lose your job, this is my life”? Doesn’t the plumber have a moral obligation to come forward? I think so. And if that moral obligation applies to a plumber, why shouldn’t it apply to an officer of the court?

The response that the legal system requires lawyers to maintain their attorney-client privileges is a serious answer. But it is no less a serious position to point out that at times it can conflict with a higher moral obligation. And, even if it’s necessary for lawyers to knowingly let the innocent rot in jail, that hardly amounts to something to brag about, let alone cheer. And yet we live in a society where we often hear “it’s unethical” as if it were synonymous with “it’s immoral.” But surely, the individual with a rightly ordered conscience can betray his professional ethical obligations in order to fulfill his moral obligations. Or is “playing by the rules” now the highest moral status, regardless of what the rules are?

I am sorely tempted to take this to the realm of journalistic ethics, where the questions are much easier to answer (remember the whole Fred Friendly seminar where Mike Wallace said that journalistic ethics superceded all other considerations including saving the lives of American soldiers? “No. You don’t have a higher duty. No. No. You’re a reporter!”)?

But, the bell tolls for Cosmo. So it is bath time.

Update: Cosmo has a reprieve until this afternoon. Off to lunch instead.