Illusory Promises

Troy, Shawn, Lisa and Dylan

Lawchick2005

Under the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility, attorneys should preserve client confidences as well as represent clients zealously -- and, should represent their clients with “reasonable diligence...” However, when does that ‘zeal’ cross the line into possibly violating the law? And when does ‘reasonable’ diligence become ‘unreasonable’? Furthermore, when is it in the public interest, as well as the attorney’s best interest, for an attorney to breach a client’s confidence? The news recently came down that veteran civil rights attorney Lynn Stewart was convicted of ‘crossing the line’ on behalf of her infamous client (and not very 'sympathetic' client), Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who is incarcerated in solitary confinement in 1996 for his role in a conspiracy to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek -- as well as to blow up famous New York landmarks.

The ‘anonymous’ jury (perhaps for ‘security’ purposes??) convicted Stewart of smuggling her client’s messages of violence to the outside world ---- i.e., to other terrorists. The word is that she will likely get a 20 year jail sentence for “conspiracy, providing material support to terrorists, defrauding the government and making false statements.” Many commentators have stated that this case was simply about thwarting competent attorneys from representing clients charged with terrorism, warning attorneys to stay away from representing such clients -- and certainly not to ‘zealously’ represent them! But, what about the fundamental principle that even the most heinous of criminals are entitled to effective legal representation?

Meanwhile, Lynn Stewart continues to maintain her innocence and states that she is simply a victim of “overzealous prosecution.” While I do not know the entire facts of this story, especially as presented to the jury, etc., I still find this story unsettling. Obviously, the jury found that she DID cross the line representing her client -- but somehow I still can’t help but thinking of the Salem Witch trials (where the community/public opinion at that time, fearful of strong, atypical, nonconformist citizens, and particularly women, condemned some of those citizens -- to death) -- and the McCarthy-driven ‘communist’ hearings/convictions of the 1950’s.

Here, we have a strong, female, apparently left-wing, civil rights attorney, described as a “firebrand,” with a successful record of representing some of the more infamous radicals of our time. What is the most disconcerting about this report is the fact that the prosecution introduced as evidence privileged attorney client conversations between Stewart and her client. While I believe that those properly convicted of terrorism should pay the full penalty for their heinous acts, and even realize that our national perception regarding accused ‘terrorists’ has forever changed since 9-11, I still believe our system should continue to promote/advance/uphold traditional notions of fairness, due process, adequate access to counsel, as well as continue to support the sanctity of the attorney/client relationship. Otherwise we are embarking on a slippery slope of sorts......

One mistake that may have been made by Ms. Stewart could be the fact that she never made a claim that her client's 6th Amendment Rights were being violated under the Constitution when the federal government (aka John Ashcroft) created the 'special rules' which allowed the government to record/eavesdrop on attorney/client conversations. (last time I checked, only Congress can write federal criminal laws -- not the Attorney General!!) As you may recall, the 6th Amendment grants all persons the right to consult with a lawyer in confidence. An article regarding the Stewart conviction can be accessed at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6948450/