Attorney-Client privilege is an incredibly important issue when it comes to court cases and the courtroom. If you’re not familiar with it, what it basically says is that an attorney is not obligated to give information which might make their client found guilty in court. Especially when it comes to a potential violation of the law not connected with the current case being prosecuted. This idea has been almost “sacred” among lawyers for years and years.
But that may no longer be the case if you are a gun owner. Rebecca Kathryn Jude and Chauncey M. DuPree, Jr. write,
If your lawyer believes that having a firearm license defines you as dangerous, you may be at risk of losing your Second Amendment rights and even your freedom. You may not know about his belief or recognize the risk until it is too late.
I can almost hear you saying, “My attorney is my advocate. What are you talking about? That could never happen!” You are wrong.
Jude and DuPree go on to describe a continuing education class in which the instructor presented a hypothetical case of a man who appears to have been wrongly fired from his job. This man comes to the lawyer to file a lawsuit against his previous employer. The man has no history of criminal activity or violence, but the fact that the man has a legal firearm permit is revealed at some point. The instructor then asked what the lawyers should do.
Jude and DuPree continue:
It seemed obvious to me there was no reason to do anything except proceed with the client’s case. I (Jude) would also advise my client to avoid confrontations with anyone who worked for his former employer and what he might consider saying if approached by the media.
While I was forming an answer, many lawyers immediately said they would terminate the attorney-client relationship and contact law enforcement to report their client was potentially dangerous. The only reason offered was his firearm permits.
I have to admit, I was flabbergasted, for several reasons. First, I live in Mississippi, which is among the reddest of the red states. Second, the attorneys—let me call them gun-phobic
—were proposing to violate the attorney-client privilege, which establishes one of the most sacrosanct confidential relationships. (American Bar Association “Rule of Professional Conduct” 1.6). As with most things, there are exceptions. They generally pertain to a client who is about to commit a criminal act or engage in fraudulent behavior.The lawyers who proposed to call the police cited ABA Rule 1.6 (b)(1). It states “[a] lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: … to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.”
I have no problem with the rule, if there is reliable evidence to believe a client is about to kill or injure someone. The question is whether there is sufficient reliable evidence to justify firing a client and reporting him to the police—a serious decision with significant consequences.
Evidence is facts, not conjecture, speculation, or supposition. The only fact addressed by attorneys who advocated reporting the client to police was the lawfully issued gun permits. It did not matter that he lawfully owned a firearm, or had a firearm permit, including an enhanced carry permit.
Now, think about this. These lawyers are willing to presume you guilty for having a gun permit even though you have not committed any crime. These are the very people who are supposed to protect you.
Instead, many of these lawyers would rather violate attorney-client privilege and call the police on you. Never mind the law. Never mind their own guidelines of conduct.
In other words, these lawyers do not believe that you have the same rights as anyone else if you legally own a gun.
Our best advice is to not advertise that you have a firearms permit and to certainly not discuss it with your lawyer. It’s just not worth the hassle.
Lawyers……the next thing to politicians. I wish they’d all go chase an ambulance, and my suggestion is…do it from the front.
Dodge cars on the freeway after the parking lot clears.
Amen, Jim! Can one sue a lawyer for malpractice in such a situation? That would certainly be my first action!
Theoretically yes. Finding a lawyer to take the case, on the other hand…
OMG!!! ‘Nuff said. Keep quiet head down…
then how do you go about getting protection if you are in a self defense situation, and have to shoot in self defense ??I have insurance through USCCA, but don’t yet have a lawyer on retainer. fortunately, I have not needed one — yet.
If you have insurance through USCCA or similar,let them handle it. They will find you the appropriate lawyer (s). Maybe even one that will go after a lousy lawyer.😎
Disgusting lack of regard for the Rule of Law and the Second Amendment and just plain civil rights. Those lawyers ought to go spend a lot of time in jail for those infractions. They are operating illegally and outside the law.
If this turns out to be the case and it is justified by any judge and jury, then it is time for us to decide what to do about this nation. If the judge and/or jury decides in favor of the so-called illegalities of of gun ownership in a group of law abiding people then it is time to sever the relationship. They would not be having us or our nation operating under the rule of law. I believe in the law and our civil rights, the Constitution and Bill of Rights and I am not about to back down on that. I also know it is very unwise to stay in a relationship where the other person is a socio- or psychopath no matter their family relationship or other relationship with you. I think that will apply to those of us who know the rule of law as well as what it is to be a citizen of this nation. It may be time to split and go our own way.
As this is *hypothetical*, the mere bantering of such is counter-productive and subversive. Fear mongering is a base ploy.
The question posed was hypothetical, but the responses were not. I agree it borders on fear mongering, but at the same time it IS concerning that lawyers would be so quick to throw the client under the bus.
The National Judicial College surveyed judges around the country in 2017 and found that 26% of judges who were surveyed said that they do carry, with another 2% saying that they were considering carrying. This is much higher rates than the general population. An unspecified number have guns in the cars or homes. A final unspecified number of other judges said that they wished that they could, but are banned from doing so in their state.
So judges get in trouble too, would these same lawyers be so quick to castigate a judge in the above hypothetical case? That should have been the next question. We should ask the ABA (American Bar Association) to perform a similar survey to find out how many lawyers carry concealed. After that info is passed around the law chronicles, maybe those that are afraid citizens with guns will behave differently in the real world. People, generally, are afraid of what they don’t understand or what they think or is aberrant.
>
Lawyers and Politicians ONE AND THE SAME You have to be one to be the other
I do not advertize whether I have a controlled gun permit or not nor do I state I have a firearm.
I can’t make this point strong enough, so please get it. This article is one small example of a no justice system. Most States have no legal or lawful law, just codes. Codes are not law. Lawyers are prohibited from practicing law outside of the 50 States of the Union. See original 13th Amendment which was ratified. Most courtrooms, which are owned by the people are being used corruptly in courts named without laws for such names. Read your paperwork. Most “judges” are not acting as judges, but are actors in their private capacity. See lack of seals on orders/judgments, signature on documents and so on. With no law, no judge your are NOT getting due process or an impartial judge hearing your “case.” In fact, you have NOT been given NOTICE of any law(s) passed by the legislature, which is the first tenet of due process. Since these actors are acting under color of law and racketeering, why would you think they would give two hoots for your rights under any amendment or constitutional guarantee? We all need to wake up to the reality of what is going on. Please comment via email: sdavid4q2@yahoo.com
Dear Gentlemen, ” lawyers ” are not about defending the innocent till proven guilty, ” lawyers ” are all about how much money these can make you bleed and for how long.
The ” law ” today is not about being just, but about keeping the sheep in line, for we have no rule of law, but do have technicism of law, and you get justice based on how much you pay, for we have the best judges, lawyers, DA’s and cops money can buy.
First and foremost if a lawyer violated client attorney privilege he would most likely be disbarred. Second if an attorney called the police and informed them that his client had a concealed permit and that and only that made him feel his client was a danger, believe it or not most police officers would laugh in his face. This sounds like an urban legend.
My two favorite groups of people, politicians and lawyers. Some of them are both.
What will possibly happen to a lawyer who dimes out his client? He will probably end up dead five out of a hundred times. Or maybe more often than that.
How dumb is a lawyer who would do this to his or her client, knowing his client has firearms.
As an attorney listed with USSCA, I am a Christian, Constitutionalist, and Conservative, in that order. I have often been a small minority or even the sole “C” in a group of attorneys. I dropped my ABA membership in the mid 90’s because they had become so radically left. Law schools seem to recruit leftist. I don’t know how I got past them. This story is appalling. It is disgusting how dumb downed the legal profession has become. I took 2 courses in Constitutional law in law school. Not once did we ever read the Constitution itself. We only read and discussed cases, which are judges’ opinions on what the Constitution means. I learned more about the Constitution from ADF, Wallbuilders, and Hillsdale and others. It also appears that ethics are now situational ethics, that are relative.
The attorneys in this story remind me of Chinese attorneys representing Chinese charged with crimes. There is no attorney-client privilege at all. The attorney reports to the judge and prosecutor everything you tell him. They are an arm of the state, not a wall against tyranny. If these attorneys think the same way, they have lost their reason for existence. Because once you find one issue that can be excluded from protection, the door is now open to any other political issue you disagree with. If they think they can us pure conjecture and speculation to violate a confidence, I would not trust them with my opinion.
That is something to take special note. Especially when shopping for an attorney.
As most of you already know, obummer care already destroyed the doctor-patient privilege regarding guns. The advice is to deny owning, ever owning, ever wanting a gun. It appears the advice applies to attorneys now also. But I would go one step further. Stay out of all discussions that are dividing our country right now. Keep it entirely on topic. Don’t let them goad you. Don’t let them trick you. If you stand for natural marriage, they may report you as a danger. You get the idea.
It is a sad day in the U.S.A. when we cannot trust our lawyers.
We have had a moral decay in this country for the last 60 years which includes all lawyers or should I say most lawyers. Most lawyers not all live by the value of money,public recognition, Money money money. David I believe you are the exception not the rule. Most Lawyers don’t care about their clients especially their client Attorney privileges. Talk about judges, most judges and lawyers are Putting the trash bag back out on the street. Obama put the IRS deep into our health care which was a big mistake. Bamma was a gun hater just like his bed partner Hillary. That’s why doctors started asking if you have guns in your house. The Lefties hate gun owners and they’re trying to manipulate the law and our constitution to go against them.Who’s behind that? the sneaky a** Lawyers. I’m not trying to offend you David or any other lawyer that sticks to his or her Oath. But what I’m afraid of is that they are leading us down a path to a revolution.
As with every stroke of the keys, the Government” is spying on me. That is right SPYING!! I know the F. B.and I. does not Spy!!!. I used to work for the State of Texas ,and after working for them I know that the State spies. Things that I never said to them Popped-up in conversation , and I had Under-cover agents do “drive-beys”,, and too think I had not seen their Under-cover cars, well they are not as crafty as they think. I have also found that if you become a “well-known person to the sheriff, and talk with the local police. odds are that you will not be looked-down on as much as you will if you are old John Q. Public.
Suppose that an former gun-owner is arrested for spitting on the side-walk, will he have a record because of his past, or not? I worked with people that sold MJ, caught, and went to the pen. Because I knew of that person, am I a person to be watched? These things do not bother me, just a question.
Keep your powder dry, and your guns locked, loaded, and lockedup. God bless you and safe shooting.
Another reason to pass the FAIRTAX.
I Think that one would be an interesting opportunity to get another lawyer, and then take the first one in front of whatever ethics committee the local bar association has. Lawyers can get sued for malpractice, just like doctors.
Comments are closed.