Quote:
Originally Posted by AZTheta
Kevin, I'm concerned about an ethical issue here. You've discussed various cases of yours with enough detail that it makes me really uncomfortable. I would be reluctant to retain an attorney who easily shared personal information about my case on an Internet board. What about attorney-client privilege? Could you not make your points without resorting to insulting others' intelligence or brirnging others' personal information to the table?
|
In the case of the linked caase, it's all public record, so not privileged. I have not shared anything which is not public record except for my own belief that she really didn't do it. And that's based on information I've shared with the Assistant District Attorney in that case, ergo, again, not privileged. In other cases, I've kept things very generic. While the link for the information probably doesn't work, anyone can go down to the courthouse and go through the case file. It's important to show that this stuff really does happen and not just for the 1%ers.
Quote:
|
At the very least, it speaks to underlying qualities of character and judgement, and I think that (given your stated credentials) you will be able to explain to us how this is acceptable in a way that even I will understand, without resorting to put-downs or insults (implied OR explicit).
|
No insults or put-downs have been used. And yes, I find it troubling that a former case worker would deny the possibility of the potential of someone being actually innocent of a crime because they know how that "type" of person is without ever having met them or familiarized themselves with anything but what they read in some news article. I have, however, in many ways and multiple times explained that people do sometimes plead guilty to crimes they are really innocent of because the deal the state offers is far and away better than the risk of potentially being convicted at trial and serving many years in the penitentiary.
I don't feel it's that difficult a concept.
Hybrid Mode
