LEGAL “ETHICS” NOT LOOKING SO GOOD: In Ethics Seminar, Lawyers Say They’d Report A Client For Legally Owning A Gun.
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. He had met significant background and training criteria. He does not have anything in his background that would prevent him from owning a firearm or possessing a permit, including a history of criminal activity, violence, or mental illness.
Gun-phobic attorneys focused on the fact the client owned a gun and had firearm permits. In their opinion, that was enough to label him as reasonably certain to cause death or serious bodily harm and report him to the police.
No one claimed there was anything legally improper about being upset with a former employer. Hiring a lawyer to file a lawsuit is a pretty good indicator of being upset. It is what you would expect from a law-abiding citizen, not a dangerous person. The gun-phobic attorneys acknowledged, in response to a question by the instructor, that displaying non-threatening signs in a public area is lawful, and is likely protected by the First Amendment.
It seems that nearly every American institution has been rotted away by leftist politics. So don’t defer to them as if they’re something special. They’re just lefty operatives with professional credentials, apparently.