A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.
Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.
NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.
Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.
During a recent ethics seminar, “The ‘Perfect’ Match: Selecting Clients for Successful Representation (Ethics),” Adam Kilgore, general counsel for the Mississippi Bar, offered the following hypothetical to a group of experienced civil and criminal lawyers.
A man has been fired from his job. He is upset. He hires you as his attorney. You are of the opinion he has an excellent case and file a complaint on his behalf. You later discover he possesses a permit to carry a firearm. He also has a so-called enhanced carry license. While his case is wending through the courts, your client goes to a public area outside his former workplace. He displays signs that say he has been wrongfully fired. The man has no history of criminal activity, violence, or threatening anyone.
The instructor asked the class what actions, if any, a lawyer should take.
Go ahead, play "You Make the Call"...
While I was forming an answer, many lawyers immediately said they would terminate the attorney-client relationship and contact law enforcement to report their client was potentially dangerous. The only reason offered was his firearm permits.
SNIP
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.”
SNIP
If gun-phobic attorneys like this have their way, there may be truly terrifying consequences. They would punish an American citizen who had done absolutely nothing wrong. Because the lawyer claims his client is reasonably certain to cause death or serious bodily harm, the police would have little choice but to take action, up to and including arrest.
A lawyer’s claim that his client is dangerous is substantially identical to the judicial standard for psychiatric detention. Under these circumstances, the client might be held for a mental evaluation. Even if ultimately cleared, this citizen would be publicly (and permanently on the internet) labeled as “dangerous.”
The adverse consequences have just begun. After being fired by an attorney, reported to the police as likely to injure or kill, arrested and held for psychiatric evaluation, what would happen to the client’s lawsuit? He would face the almost insurmountable burden of finding a new lawyer. How many attorneys would accept a case where a client has been fired by his previous attorney and arrested based on his attorney’s opinion that he is dangerous?
But, licensing was definitely the best way to go...
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908
Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.
"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
Absolutely bogus. Yet, probably an accurate representation (I believe) of one of the many biases being actively taught in law schools.
In law school, I wrote a research paper on firearms laws arguing that the same standard of review (strict scrutiny) used for the 1st amendment should be applied to the 2nd. My ultimate conclusion was that this standard of review was "necessary to avoid the circumstance where 'rational' restrictions on the Second Amendment inevitably lead to complete bans on firearms possession" and the eventual functional loss of the 2nd amendment. This conclusion was deemed "highly provocative".
NRA Benefactor Life Member
Information posted in these forums is my personal opinion only. It is not intended, nor should it be construed, as legal advice.
While I was forming an answer, many lawyers immediately said they would terminate the attorney-client relationship and contact law enforcement to report their client was potentially dangerous. The only reason offered was his firearm permits.
As Spock would say, if they were going to do something violent why would they bother suing?
So these attorneys would report that their client was potentially dangerous merely and only due to a carry permit that most likely was issued by the very same LE agency that they are reporting their client to? If that is a correct assumption doesn't that make the issuing agency an accomplice?
Forgetting the anti gun bias for a second, if an attorney is that stupid and fails basic logic I don't believe I'd want them representing me anyway.
While I was forming an answer, many lawyers immediately said they would terminate the attorney-client relationship and contact law enforcement to report their client was potentially dangerous. The only reason offered was his firearm permits.
As Spock would say, if they were going to do something violent why would they bother suing?
So these attorneys would report that their client was potentially dangerous merely and only due to a carry permit that most likely was issued by the very same LE agency that they are reporting their client to? If that is a correct assumption doesn't that make the issuing agency an accomplice?
Forgetting the anti gun bias for a second, if an attorney is that stupid and fails basic logic I don't believe I'd want them representing me anyway.
As a retired attorney, I can state that many lawyers are that stupid.
-- Mike
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
