So... someone confesses murder to you

[grumbler]

Yeah I did not say anything about blood only political realities for the past several decades.

No, you said nothing about realities, you said things only about how you were not sure why people couldn't "get" some bogus bumper-sticker concept.  My response is that people are not as stupid as you assume.

If you want to mean that all Israelis and Palestinians have some sort of blood lust for each other...well I don't think you necessarily need that to be enemies.

I have no idea what the first part of this means, but I would assert that you do need to be enemies to be enemies, and there are Palestinians who are not enemies of Israelis, and vice-versa.  Ergo, your assumption-conclusion is false.

[grumbler]

We do have that exception to Solicitor-client privilege - if a client tells you of plans to commit a serious offence (in particular one of violence) you must violate privilege.

One would think this rule would be universal (and insofar as I have hear anyone on thie issue, it seems to be).  Are you aware of any exceptions to this rule (which I assume you would have to remember from your legal ethics class)?  And I have always been curious as to how serious the offense must be to warrant the violation pf privilege; felony? violence? with a victim? 

[Monoriu]

If someone confesses murder to me, I'm not going to believe it under any and all circumstances.  Even if he shows me the body. 

[ulmont]

According to my ethics textbook, Florida and Virginia require a lawyer to disclose a client's intention to commit any crime.

Half the states allow a lawyer to report a client's intention to commit any crime.

The remainder allow a lawyer to disclose only a client's intention to commit a crime "to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm."

These rules may have been loosened somewhat in the wake of Sarbanes-Oxley regarding financial crimes; my text is from 2003.

[Barrister]

We do have that exception to Solicitor-client privilege - if a client tells you of plans to commit a serious offence (in particular one of violence) you must violate privilege.

One would think this rule would be universal (and insofar as I have hear anyone on thie issue, it seems to be).  Are you aware of any exceptions to this rule (which I assume you would have to remember from your legal ethics class)?  And I have always been curious as to how serious the offense must be to warrant the violation pf privilege; felony? violence? with a victim?

It is far from universal, as the exception has only been put into various codes of professional conduct in the last couple of decades or so.  Once upon a time solicitor-client privilege was considered so sancrosanct no exception could be made in any circumstance.

The extent of the exception varies upon your jurisdiction.  Because of course everyone cares, here's the Yukon wording (which is really just cribbed from the Canadian Bar Association model rules):

Public Safety Exception
2. Where a lawyer believes upon reasonable grounds that
there is an imminent risk to an identifiable person or group of
death or serious bodily harm, including serious psychological
harm that would substantially interfere with health or wellbeing,
the lawyer shall disclose confidential information where
it is necessary to do so in order to prevent the death or harm,
but shall not disclose more information than is required.2
3. The lawyer who has reasonable grounds for believing that
a dangerous situation is likely to develop at a court or tribunal
facility shall inform the person having responsibility for
security at the facility and give particulars, being careful not to
disclose confidential information except as required by
Code of Professional Conduct 17
paragraph 2 of this Rule. Where possible the lawyer should
suggest solutions to the anticipated problem such as:
(a) the need for further security;
(b) that judgment be reserved;
(c) such other measure as may seem advisable.3

I believe other jurisdictions are worded slightly more broadly so it is not restricted to only crimes of violence.

[viper37]

From the context of the question, the question was put as if he would report a fellow soldier who had shot a "neutralized civilian" (whatever that means) in a combat situation.

Neutralized civilian, as in, you make a sweep in the house, you make sure people are unarmed/pose no threat while you investigate the house for suspected ennemy combattants.  On your way out, you shoot a civilian.

I did say an Israeli soldier, but it could be an American soldier saying the same thing about an Iraki civilian.

He said no, but if the soldier had shot a civilian back home he would. That to me seems to indicate that he will make a difference between a shot fired in a combat zone, and a shot fired in a "non-combat-peaceful-civilian-situation". I cant say I agree with him, but who knows, Ive never been in a situation like that so I cannot say how I would react.

It indicates that to him Palestinians are the ennemy, with or without weapons.
Willingly killing an unarmed civilian in a combat situation is the same as shooting someone of the street.

[Neil]

I am not sure why the concept that Palestinians and Israelis are enemies is such a difficult concept for so many people.

Because it is a bogus concept?
Palestinians and Israelis are not enemies.  Some Palestinians are enemies of the state of Israel (and therefor most Israelis), and vice-versa, but this idea that person A is an enemy of person B merely by virtue of the fact that A is Palestinian and B is Israeli is an absurd contention.  Hannan Ashrawi is not an enemy of any Israelis, insofar as I know.  Jamal Zahalka is not the enemy of any Palestinians, insofar as I know.

I am not sure why the concept that people are not enemies because of "blood" is such a difficult concept for so many people.

Probably because most people understand the concept of loyalty.  For many people, being part of a group is a big deal.

[grumbler]

We do have that exception to Solicitor-client privilege - if a client tells you of plans to commit a serious offence (in particular one of violence) you must violate privilege.

One would think this rule would be universal (and insofar as I have hear anyone on thie issue, it seems to be).  Are you aware of any exceptions to this rule (which I assume you would have to remember from your legal ethics class)?  And I have always been curious as to how serious the offense must be to warrant the violation pf privilege; felony? violence? with a victim?

It is far from universal, as the exception has only been put into various codes of professional conduct in the last couple of decades or so.  Once upon a time solicitor-client privilege was considered so sancrosanct no exception could be made in any circumstance.

The extent of the exception varies upon your jurisdiction.  Because of course everyone cares, here's the Yukon wording (which is really just cribbed from the Canadian Bar Association model rules):

Public Safety Exception
(snip)

I believe other jurisdictions are worded slightly more broadly so it is not restricted to only crimes of violence.

Grazie

[stjaba]

According to my ethics textbook, Florida and Virginia require a lawyer to disclose a client's intention to commit any crime.

Half the states allow a lawyer to report a client's intention to commit any crime.

The remainder allow a lawyer to disclose only a client's intention to commit a crime "to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm."

These rules may have been loosened somewhat in the wake of Sarbanes-Oxley regarding financial crimes; my text is from 2003.

In the latest version of the ABA Model Rules, rule 1.6 permit disclosure "to prevent client from commiting a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another" or to "prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial or property of another that is reasonably certainn to result or has resulted from the client's commission of a crime or a fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer's services."

In the context of a business organization, model rule 1.13 provides that a lawyer needs to go the highest authority within the organization first before disclosure.

According to my handy chart, some states have adopted these changes, some do not permit disclosure, some have adopted modified versions, and New Jersey appears to require disclosure.

Can you tell that I had a professional responsibility exam Monday? 

[DontSayBanana]

In the latest version of the ABA Model Rules, rule 1.6 permit disclosure "to prevent client from commiting a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another" or to "prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial or property of another that is reasonably certainn to result or has resulted from the client's commission of a crime or a fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer's services."

In the context of a business organization, model rule 1.13 provides that a lawyer needs to go the highest authority within the organization first before disclosure.

According to my handy chart, some states have adopted these changes, some do not permit disclosure, some have adopted modified versions, and New Jersey appears to require disclosure.

Can you tell that I had a professional responsibility exam Monday? 

We do not absolutely require disclosure; basically, NJ's Rules of Professional Conduct are a carbon copy of the Model Rules.

RPC 1.6 Confidentiality of Information

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in paragraphs (b) and (c).

(b) A lawyer shall reveal such information to the proper authorities, as soon as, and to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary, to prevent the client:

(1) from committing a criminal, illegal or fraudulent act that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm or substantial injury to the financial interest or property of another;

(2) from committing a criminal, illegal or fraudulent act that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to perpetrate a fraud upon a tribunal.

(c) A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:

(1) to rectify the consequences of a client's criminal, illegal or fraudulent act in the furtherance of which the lawyer's services had been used;

(2) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, or to establish a defense to a criminal charge, civil claim or disciplinary complaint against the lawyer based upon the conduct in which the client was involved; or

(3) to comply with other law.

(d) Reasonable belief for purposes of RPC 1.6 is the belief or conclusion of a reasonable lawyer that is based upon information that has some foundation in fact and constitutes prima facie evidence of the matters referred to in subsections (b) or (c).

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rpc97.htm#1.6

Basically, we can only breach confidentiality if we believe someone is going to be harmed or killed, if we know a client is perjuring/will perjure themselves, or if silence would leave us complicit in an act of fraud.

[stjaba]

Contact my textbook publisher- it explicitly states New Jersey is a "shall reveal" state.

The model rules are different- "may reveal." which would permit but not require disclosure. I'm assuming shall reveal means the same thing as must reveal.


Edit:

Based on reading the whole section, New Jersey appears to require disclosure in some cases, and permits disclosure in other cases. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that New Jersey never requires disclosure.

[DontSayBanana]

Contact my textbook publisher- it explicitly states New Jersey is a "shall reveal" state.

The model rules are different- "may reveal." which would permit but not require disclosure. I'm assuming shall reveal means the same thing as must reveal.


Edit:

Based on reading the whole statute, New Jersey appears to require disclosure in some cases, and permits disclosure in other cases. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that New Jersey never requires disclosure.

I never said that New Jersey "never requires disclosure"; I only said that it leaves the lawyer discretion in cases where silence would not result in harm to another person or amount to perjury or fraud.

Also, consider that when we're reading rules of conduct that govern ethics, rather than statutes that govern specific actions, suggestive words like "may" could imply an ethical obligation, and are only intended to allow a lawyer to judge whether or not following the rule could cause more harm.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if any state's lawyer was asked to explain his conduct when he knowingly allowed his client to perjure themselves, the investigating committee would read that "may" as "must, unless doing so would cause more harm."

[stjaba]

Also, consider that when we're reading rules of conduct that govern ethics, rather than statutes that govern specific actions, suggestive words like "may" could imply an ethical obligation, and are only intended to allow a lawyer to judge whether or not following the rule could cause more harm.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if any state's lawyer was asked to explain his conduct when he knowingly allowed his client to perjure themselves, the investigating committee would read that "may" as "must, unless doing so would cause more harm."

I don't think so. There's a big difference between being permitted to do so, and being reqiured to do so. Given the ramification of breaking the rules(punishment up to disbarment) I think the drafters of each state's codes are very careful over the words chosen, and whether something is permitted or required is very distinguishable. There is some variation between how the states have adapted the model rules, and if New Jersey has (for instance) changed "may" to "shall" it's because it is turning an option into an requirement. I highly doubt courts would interpret a may as a must, especially in the context of confidentiality, which is considered sacred.

Besides, why use may when you mean must?  There's a really big difference between the two. I don't recall any cases that I read this past semester where may was interpreted as must or vice-versa.

Also, the restatement of law governing lawyers, which is influential in the formation of ethical codes, states in section 66 first 1) lawyer may(note not must) disclose in certain situations and in  subsection  3) a lawyer who takes action or decides not to action permitted under this section is not, soley by reason of such action or inaction, subject to professional discipline." In other words, it's pretty explicit that may is to be strictly interpreted as may and not must.

[grumbler]

I don't think so. There's a big difference between being permitted to do so, and being reqiured to do so. Given the ramification of breaking the rules(punishment up to disbarment) I think the drafters of each state's codes are very careful over the words chosen, and whether something is permitted or required is very distinguishable. There is some variation between how the states have adapted the model rules, and if New Jersey has (for instance) changed "may" to "shall" it's because it is turning an option into an requirement. I highly doubt courts would interpret a may as a must, especially in the context of confidentiality, which is considered sacred.

Besides, why use may when you mean must?  There's a really big difference between the two. I don't recall any cases that I read this past semester where may was interpreted as must or vice-versa.

Actually, the operative words are "may" and "shall."  There is a difference between "must" and "shall" as well.

I would agree with you, though, that no court would read the "may" as "shall" if the lawyer can show that he/she considered whether to reveal or not and decided, on balance, not to reveal.  I would note that the circumstances surrounding "may reveal" are those in which the lawyer has a personal interest.  If the interests being harmed are other peoples' then the "shall reveal" portion appears to apply.