So... someone confesses murder to you

[Ed Anger]

har har again.

[jimmy olsen]

As I mentioned however, what I was told was very clearly covered by solicitor-client priviledge.

In the US that is the sacred bond between a hooker and a john.

[Valmy]

I would track down Martinus, kill him and destroy the body.  Then I would wait 30 years and tell my grandson and then have him post about it on a Languish equivalent 20 years later.

[Martim Silva]

As I mentioned however, what I was told was very clearly covered by solicitor-client priviledge.

Over here, while a Lawyer should always try to prove his client innocent, if the client admits to him he his guilty of an unpunished crime, then the client priviledge is automatically removed and the Lawyer is forced by Law to report his client.

If he does not, then he can be charged as an accomplice.

This is done mostly because usually only instable criminals will actually admit their crimes, so it is best to remove these dangerous psychos ASAP.

[HisMajestyBOB]

I would track down Martinus, kill him and destroy the body.  Then I would wait 30 years and tell my grandson and then have him post about it on a Languish equivalent 20 years later.

AAR please.

[Barrister]

As I mentioned however, what I was told was very clearly covered by solicitor-client priviledge.

Over here, while a Lawyer should always try to prove his client innocent, if the client admits to him he his guilty of an unpunished crime, then the client priviledge is automatically removed and the Lawyer is forced by Law to report his client.

If he does not, then he can be charged as an accomplice.

This is done mostly because usually only instable criminals will actually admit their crimes, so it is best to remove these dangerous psychos ASAP.

Any non-crazy portuguese want to confirm this story?  That sounds completely ridiculous to me.  What you describe is the complete opposite of solicitor-client privilege.

[Jaron]

As I mentioned however, what I was told was very clearly covered by solicitor-client priviledge.

Over here, while a Lawyer should always try to prove his client innocent, if the client admits to him he his guilty of an unpunished crime, then the client priviledge is automatically removed and the Lawyer is forced by Law to report his client.

If he does not, then he can be charged as an accomplice.

This is done mostly because usually only instable criminals will actually admit their crimes, so it is best to remove these dangerous psychos ASAP.

Any non-crazy portuguese want to confirm this story?  That sounds completely ridiculous to me.  What you describe is the complete opposite of solicitor-client privilege.

I can confirm..

[Barrister]

Any non-crazy portuguese want to confirm this story?  That sounds completely ridiculous to me.  What you describe is the complete opposite of solicitor-client privilege.

I can confirm..

You are a non-crazy portuguese?

I see two things wrong with you answering that question.

[Jaron]

Any non-crazy portuguese want to confirm this story?  That sounds completely ridiculous to me.  What you describe is the complete opposite of solicitor-client privilege.

I can confirm..

You are a non-crazy portuguese?

I see two things wrong with you answering that question.

[jimmy olsen]

As I mentioned however, what I was told was very clearly covered by solicitor-client priviledge.

Over here, while a Lawyer should always try to prove his client innocent, if the client admits to him he his guilty of an unpunished crime, then the client priviledge is automatically removed and the Lawyer is forced by Law to report his client.

If he does not, then he can be charged as an accomplice.

This is done mostly because usually only instable criminals will actually admit their crimes, so it is best to remove these dangerous psychos ASAP.

Any non-crazy portuguese want to confirm this story?  That sounds completely ridiculous to me.  What you describe is the complete opposite of solicitor-client privilege.

A quick google search by me suggest otherwise. (I have no idea if this is a credible source)

https://www.lexmundi.com/images/lexmundi/PDF/AttyClient/2007_Atty_Client_Update/At_Client_PORTUGAL.pdf

[Martim Silva]

Any non-crazy portuguese want to confirm this story?  That sounds completely ridiculous to me.  What you describe is the complete opposite of solicitor-client privilege.

First, here is a government decree about client privilege, of all classes, Journalists and Lawyers in particular:

http://www.portugal.gov.pt/pt/GC17/Governo/Ministerios/PCM/MAP/Notas/Pages/20070713_MAP_Com_Sigilo_Jornalistas.aspx

It determines that the Court many order any of them to breach their ethical ties with their sources (journalists) and clients (Lawyers) if the higher interests of Justice so demand. In other words, the Court may order the Lawyer to say what he really knows about his client.

(this government decree put a journalist behind bars for refusing to tell his sources in a case where he revealed serious crimes, but did not say who did commit them)

http://www.trp.pt/jurisprudenciacivel/civel08_1390.html

This other is a Court ruling regarding the attitude a Lawyer should have when a client tells him/her about something very relevant to the carrying out of Justice.

Basically, it says the Lawyer should go to the local reponsible of the Order, tell him what he knows and get offical authorization by the Order to go and tell the authorities what he/she now knows.

It notes that the breach of solicitor/client privilege by the Lawyer is:

"Not punishiable if it is revealed as part of the carrying out of a superior juridical duty or has as objective a legitimate public or private interest when, taking into consideration the interests in conflict and the duties of information that, regarding the circumstances, are imposed upon the judicial agent"

"não será punível se for revelado no cumprimento de um dever jurídico sensivelmente superior ou visar um interesse público ou privado legítimo, quando, considerados os interesses em conflito e os deveres de informação que, segundo as circunstâncias, se impõem ao agente".


So, let me see if I get this straight... you think that [as is done in your country], if a Laywer knows and is really convinces his client is truly guilty, he should either keep trying to get him/her off or simply move aside without letting anyone know the Truth.

While I note that in my country a Lawyer should, if he truly knows that his/her client is guilty, make sure that Justice gets done.

And I'M the crazy one? 

[Malthus]

So, let me see if I get this straight... you think that [as is done in your country], if a Laywer knows and is really convinces his client is truly guilty, he should either keep trying to get him/her off or simply move aside without letting anyone know the Truth.

While I note that in my country a Lawyer should, if he truly knows that his/her client is guilty, make sure that Justice gets done.

And I'M the crazy one? 

A lawyer isn't a judge or jury. The function of the trier of fact is to assess guilt or innocence. The lawyer's task is, within the rules of ethics, to obtain the best result possible for their client, based on the facts.

A lawyer cannot counsel perjury (that is, they cannot allow their client to lie on the stand). They can however state that the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence to prove their client's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's how our system works. It is up to the state to prove a person guilty. If the state cannot do that, after going through the trial process, that person must be allowed to go free no matter what the lawyer thinks of him or her. 

[Berkut]

I wonder if this thread would exist if the story was about some guy throwing someone overboard because of an argument over cards or something, rather than Tah Gay Panic?

I suspect....not.

[Eddie Teach]

And I'M the crazy one? 

[Grey Fox]

I wonder if this thread would exist if the story was about some guy throwing someone overboard because of an argument over cards or something, rather than Tah Gay Panic?

I suspect....not.

Of course not.