Wisconsin, the Stimulus Package, and Green Jobs

Some legal commentators in recent months have questioned whether the Obama Stimulus Package will truly create green jobs for the American economy. See, for example, Morriss et. al., Green Job Myths.

Here is some indication how to use those dollars so that they will actually create those jobs.  The following is a press release from the Center on Wisconsin Strategy (COWS), a nonprofit, nonpartisan “think-and-do tank,” dedicated to improving economic performance and living standards in the state of Wisconsin and nationally:

A new report from the Center on Wisconsin Strategy encourages the state to embrace the green-collar potential of a clean energy economy. Greening Wisconsin’s Workforce: Training, Recovery and the Clean Energy Economy looks at how Wisconsin might best use its Recovery Act dollars and first-rate technical college system to ensure that the emerging green economy benefits Wisconsin’s working families. 

Continue ReadingWisconsin, the Stimulus Package, and Green Jobs

When I Was Just a Baby, My Mama Told Me, Son/Always Be a Good Boy . . .

. . . but I internalized the norms of the legal profession early. I first became a lawyer at Badger Boy’s State. My first case was to defend a floormate who was accused of throwing water out a window on a counselor. I knew he did it because I was there. I also knew that he was far enough from the window that he could not be identified. Great cross (for a 17 year old) and an acquittal. Since then, I haven’t been clean a day in my life. My name is Rick E., and I believe in the adversarial system . . . .

I’m not stalking Mr. Samis through the Blog, but his post on the demands of confidentiality when a client has disclosed evidence of a past crime reflects a timeless ethical dilemma. Here’s another good one.

Assume that your client has told you that he committed the crime. You now can’t call him to deny it, but you were probably never going to do that anyway. How else should that impact the way in which you present a defense?

Continue ReadingWhen I Was Just a Baby, My Mama Told Me, Son/Always Be a Good Boy . . .

Bad Law Makes Tragic Cases: Is Rule 1.6 Unethical?

I am just finishing up Law Governing Lawyers with Prof. Schneider.  I did wonder before the class first met why the course was not called something like “Legal Ethics”; after all, even our text is entitled “Ethical Problems in the Practice of Law” by Lerman and Schrag.

It didn’t take long to discover that the law governing lawyers, while usually ethical, occasionally requires behaviors that cannot possibly be squared with any ethical system.

The one that stands out most is Rule 1.6 in the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility.  In Wisconsin, this Rule is codified as SCR 20:1.6 Confidentiality.

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in pars. (b) and (c).

[paragraphs (b) and (c) omitted.]

The rationale behind the Rule is that effective representation depends on the client’s candid communication with his or her attorney, which depends on trusting the attorney to keep the client’s confidences.  Everyone has a right to fair treatment by the law ensured by effective representation.  I get that, and at first glance, there is no apparent ethical dilemma.  If clients tell their attorneys about ongoing or impending criminal acts, paragraphs (b) and (c) require or allow reporting.

But deeper reflection in class drew out a serious ethical dilemma from tragic cases in which lawyers are given information about past crimes, which does not fit the given exceptions and withholding of which is difficult to justify.  The most tragic cases are child killers whose victims have not been found.  When the killers tell their attorneys where the bodies are, can the attorneys be compelled tell the families or the police?  From several cases, the answer is ‘No’.

Continue ReadingBad Law Makes Tragic Cases: Is Rule 1.6 Unethical?