ABA Journal - Law News Now

Comments

• Report Abuse

1. Posted by Bill - 4 months, 5 days, 9 hours, 18 minutes ago

   So these two lawyers KNEW an innocent man was in PRISON for a quarter century, yet because of atty-client privilege they said nothing?  Yeah, you might be sued; yeah you might be penalized by the bar - but for christ’s sake, you’re talking about a miscarriage of justice here - a man’s life and liberty wrongly taken.  “I couldn’t do anything legally or ethically” - what about morally? 

   And some lawyers feign surprise at why people are disgusted by lawyers.

   Here’s what you can do, legally and ethically - work on your client long and hard to come forward and confess to his crime so as not to ruin the other guy’s life!  This pisses me off.

2. Posted by Matt Smith - 4 months, 5 days, 8 hours, 10 minutes ago

   There is that exception to the privilege: if the client is using the attorney’s services to engage in crime or fraud. It seems that knowiing an innocent man is rotting away in jail, while your client is confessing guilt, is, at the very least, a continuing fraud - on the court or against the innocent guy.

   I think this situation meets the exception.

3. Posted by Flipside - 4 months, 5 days, 7 hours, 35 minutes ago

   How about we give Mr. Coventry the benefit of the doubt and assume he did try and convince his client to come forward.  With many of your hard core (killer) criminals, the “it’s the right thing to do” argument oftentimes doesn’t carry a lot of weight.

4. Posted by DGL - 4 months, 5 days, 7 hours, 12 minutes ago

   I’m missing something here - the truly guilty man was in prison for another crime.  He died in prison.  He could have done the murder time as well and the innocent man could have been freed sooner,

   My heart goes out to Mr. Coventry for having to make this choice.  I don’t know that I could have made the same choice that he made, which is why I don’t practice criminal law.  I have a tremendous amount of respect for defense attorneys who have to grapple with the questions of ethics and morality every time they take on a client.

5. Posted by Melissa - 4 months, 5 days, 7 hours, 10 minutes ago

   These attorneys are so offensive to me.  Though they may have been technically right under the rule; it’s really shocking.  I don’t doubt that they tried to convince their client to confess or let them come forward earlier, but that really isn’t an excuse as an attorney, much less a human being. 

   We attorneys generally tend to be enamoured with whatever rules are convenient for us at the time, and work diligently to get around those that aren’t as convenient.  I guess I would find a shred of dignity in these attorneys if we looked at the whole course of their careers and found that they never bent another rule, statute, canon of ethics or otherwise for their own benefit or the benefit of their clients.  Can any of us really say that.

6. Posted by Code_Red - 4 months, 5 days, 7 hours, 6 minutes ago

   I could not allow this to happen.  I would petition the state ethics rules-making body to create a waiver-exception for extreme cases like this.  If they refused, I would give them and Wilson advance warning that I will not allow an innocent man to remain in prison indefinitely for a crime he did not committ and either accept the punishment or find another profession.  IIts not worth it and Coventry cannot ever feel right about what he did.  Let’s also keep in mind that Wilson did not tell Coventry this information for purposes of obtaining legal advice -it was a gratuitous disclosure unrelated to the client’s representation.  The privilege should not apply to gratuitous disclosures that, if revealed, would prevent a gross miscarriage of justice.

7. Posted by Mark - 4 months, 5 days, 6 hours, 58 minutes ago

   This is a hard case, and hard cases set bad precedent. While it is repugnant that an innocent man was in prison, consider this. If the guilty client had not had faith in his attorneys to uphold the attorney-client privilege, he might never have confessed to them, and this wrong might never have been righted.

8. Posted by Jeff - 4 months, 5 days, 6 hours, 41 minutes ago

   Thank you Mark. I thought the ABA was an association of lawyers and law students. Obviously some of the posters never took a class in legal ethics. If you want to break the ethics code then go ahead but don’t fault Coventry for doing what is supposedly the right thing.

9. Posted by Eric - 4 months, 5 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes ago

   There is a point where one’s morals and personal ethics must rule.  The professional rules of conduct must be followed right up to the point where they are in direct conflict to decent standards of humanity—here that line was crossed.  Personally, I think this information could have been disclosed through proper actions and channels - the rules of professional conduct are not an alter where we are expected to sacrifice the freedom of an innocent man for blind adherence to the rules.  I like to believe that if the matter could not be resolved through dilligent pursuit of legitimate channels that I would flip my finger to the rules of professional conduct and do the morally right thing.  We ultimately need to be able to look ourselves in the mirror.

10. Posted by Josh - 4 months, 5 days, 6 hours, 23 minutes ago

    I don’t think some of you commenting understand the purpose of the attorney-client privilege.  If a client can’t trust his/her attorney, then there is no protection for the privilege for the client or the attorney.  If you find one exception, it begins the slippery slope that undermines the rights of a client.  No client would feel comfortable telling their lawyer anything, and more innocent people would wind up in prison.  When a client discloses all the information to the lawyer, then the attorney can properly defend his/her rights.

    In a small percentage of cases, we see a situation similar to this and immediately people attack lawyers as a group or just this type falsely believing they committed a mistake.  Let’s not forget that the confession is only one part of changing the outcome of this wrongly convicted person.  What about the prosecution’s case, the effectiveness of defense counsel in Alton Logan’s case?

    Repeating the words of Mark, the privilege eventually brought justice.  Many defendants proclaim innocence for many years and finally there is a light whether a confession or DNA evidence suddenly appears.  It’s important to always look at the whole picture and realize life isn’t always fair.

11. Posted by Josh - 4 months, 5 days, 6 hours, 14 minutes ago

    To Eric and other commentators that believe they would toss the ethics book out the window because they couldn’t live with this kind of responsibility, you should stay away from this area of law.  My advice is if you can’t uphold your duties to the court and your client, then maybe practicing law isn’t for you.  By following your heart, you may end up becoming disbarred.  The code of ethics doesn’t reward heroes.

12. Posted by Flipside - 4 months, 5 days, 6 hours, 4 minutes ago

    "They” advise us to “never say never.” With that in mind, I always said I would never respond personally to a poster.  However . . .

    Melissa, the opening sentence to your comment above (#5) is offensive to me.  How dare you personally attack these two lawyers (“These attorneys are so offensive to me.”) because they had the intestinal fortitude to uphold tenets of the profession to which, presumably, you yourself subscribe?  If you are not willing to abide by all the rules required of practicing attorneys, as opposed to only those rules you find it easy to live with, then perhaps you need to find another profession.  No one ever said our paths, as attorneys, would be brightly marked and lined with roses.

    And before anyone labels me as “just another criminal defense zealot,” I have never done criminal defense work.  To the contrary, I spent eight years assisting with prosecutions of accused persons in federal courts.  In that time, I found many of the criminal defense lawyers I had dealings with were truly people worthy of emulation, both professionally and personally.

    Although the facts of this case are not reconcilable with my own sense of fair play, I would opine that, given their role in the system, the decisions and actions that Mr. Coventry and his co-counsel made and took were absolutely correct and should be beyond reproach.  They should not be subject to personal or professional scorn or ridicule for taking what was undoubtedly one of the hardest courses of action any of us as lawyers could imagine having foisted upon us.

13. Posted by BT - 4 months, 5 days, 4 hours, 37 minutes ago

    Matt, you should brush up on the ethics rules.  The exception to the rule involves future crime or continuing crime.  The killing happened previously to the communication and unless there was an indication of furture crime or continued crime, there is not an applicable exception. 

    Also and as already mentioned, why would anyone confide in or trust their attorney if they knew information disclosed to them was freely provided to authorities.  They would not.

14. Posted by anon - 4 months, 5 days, 3 hours, 24 minutes ago

    I’m not completely sure, but I think I read in the local papers before that at least one of the attorneys did approach the ARDC, who said he was required under the rules to not disclose anything.

15. Posted by Alan - 4 months, 5 days, 2 hours, 42 minutes ago

    A profound embarrassment to our way of life. Little rules for little men.

16. Posted by Matt Smith - 4 months, 5 days, 2 hours, 40 minutes ago

    Sorry BT, maybe I wasn’t clear. I was not referring to any past crimes disclosed to the attorney. I was arguing that there was a “continuing fraud” being perpetrated on the court, or the system, or the innocent man. This “continuing fraud” (non-disclosure) certainly would result in substantial bodily harm to a man locked away, in the pen, for a crime he did not commit. 

    The rule is 1.6(b)(1):

    b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:

    (1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;

    As far as my need to “brush up” on the ethics rules, I was simply making an argument, which most attorneys worth their salt do. Maybe its not what the rule intended, maybe its not permitted at all. But I most certainly would make the argument to the ethics board. Maybe you should “brush up” on the practical realities of practicing law? Unless you are Justice Scalia, don’t make personal attacks.

    Pursuant to anon’s comment, this changes things. The attorney seems like he was making good faith efforts. Approaching the ethics committee and ASKING what you should do was probably the right avenue to take. I would have followed the ethics rule, but I would have busted my rump trying to figure out how to argue for that man’s release, the innocent man, by whatever means necessary.

    Maybe he did everything that was necessary. I don’t know. Its a tough call. As for nobody wanting to disclose information to their attorneys, I highly doubt our security guard murderers are kept abreast of the ever-changing ethical rules for lawyers. What they don’t know, doesn’t affect what they disclose.

17. Posted by Shell Shocked - 4 months, 5 days, 1 hour, 46 minutes ago

    I could understand keeping it a secret if it didn’t negatively affect another persons life.....scarey thing is if this was in florida or texas he could have been executed withing 15 years......the ethics arugements are strong but not absolute…

18. Posted by Kristin - 4 months, 4 days, 23 hours, 17 minutes ago

    Matt, it’s apparent that BT understood you the first time. There is no exception to the rules that would allow for those two attorneys to do anything other than exactly what they did (and better them than me, to be faced with such a horrible choice). You’re kidding yourself if you think that any court in the United States would agree with your argument that prison time falls within the category of “substantial bodily harm.”

19. Posted by Matt Smith - 4 months, 4 days, 20 hours, 6 minutes ago

    Yes, they allowed a person to be imprisoned for 26 years without telling anyone, I understand their reservations, but still think there is a fight under the rule.

    Do you have precedent that this won’t qualify for a “substantial bodily harm” argument? The Enron lawyers didn’t have an exception either - so the ABA had to change the rules to include financial injury. This isn’t exactly the type of situation you see everyday. Hell, if I were elected a judge, I’d buy it. What about an in camera review? Judges always do that stuff when attorneys are unsure about disclosure.

20. Posted by student - 4 months, 4 days, 17 hours, 54 minutes ago

    This was actually a death penalty case, and I heard that the lawyers were thinking about coming forward if Mr. Logan was going to be put to death. He was sentenced to life in prison instead, or at least that is my understanding of the facts.

21. Posted by Think About It - 4 months, 4 days, 16 hours, 24 minutes ago

    Wilson was originally facing the death penalty. He was involved in the murder of two police officers. When Coventry and Kunz got permission to break the confidence after Wilson’s death, it was looking like that would come sooner or later.

    Then the whole Burge scandal happened - it was Wilson’s torture at Area 2 that broke it open. Wilson ended up escaping the death penalty.

    So, you’re Wilson’s attorney and you have a confidence that might get one man out of a lengthy jail term, but will likely set your client up for the death penalty.

    Not so easy now, is it?

22. Posted by Think About It - 4 months, 4 days, 16 hours, 8 minutes ago

    One more thing - when Wilson was arrested, he was in possession of the weapon used in the murder for which Alton Logan was wrongfully convicted. Where is criticism of the police in all this?

23. Posted by TG - 4 months, 1 day, 22 hours, 6 minutes ago

    This is the kind of story that makes me ashamed to be a part of this profession.  The “rules of ethics” need to be “fixed.” How can we call ourselves ethical and allow something like this to occur?  I understand and respect attorney/client privilege.  But, I don’t think I could have lived with myself for 26 years knowing that an innocent man was in prison and I had the power to right that wrong but did nothing.  I’d rather become a deckhand on a fishing boat and lose my license, than to live with that knowlege.  Surely one would think they could have approached the judge without revealing who made the statements to them.  They could have their client provide infomation known only to the killer, then present that evidence without revealing the name of the source.  Under the rules, I don’t think the court could compel them to reveal the individual.  I would surely have tried that, rather than just going on about my life for 26 years.