I'll find it and link it here.
When they say the ethics rules did not "require" them to act on that request, they are correct. The ethics rules would also not bar them from acting on the request if they had no professional opinion in front of them to the effect that he was nuts. The missing piece here is that we do not know, as we sit here, what the psych evaluation of Epstein said at the relevant time.
"The crazy client" is a big ball of dilemmas, and it happens fairly often.
In setting the goals of representation when, for example, I am trying to determine what the client would believe is an acceptable settlement value, the client will frequently say something like "I dunno, what do you think?" I have a standard answer for that question:
"I can't tell you what you want, and I can't tell you whether or not you should want it. I can only tell you what I think are your chances of getting it, and I will try to help you get it. If you don't know what you want, there are other professionals who might help you figure that out."
----
Oh, here it is, it was in a thread you posted:
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100212375175#post94
...
Can you imagine your defense attorney saying, "You know, Bobo, I could try to get you released, but I think you ought to stay in jail for your own good."
-----
Go to one of those attorneys and don't ask whether the rules "require" them to seek removal from suicide watch at their client's behest. Ask those attorneys this question:
"If you do not have a diagnosis of your client from a competent mental health professional, are you more likely to get into trouble by (a) seeking a lawful objective your client desires or (b) deciding not to seek a lawful objective your client desires, because you have decided on your own that your client's judgment is impaired?"
I believe you'll get a much clearer answer to the question phrased in that way.
The simplest way to resolve the problem if the lawyer cannot bring himself or herself to seek the lawful objective the client wants - and this applies generally - is to inform the client that they are no longer able to represent that client.
But circumstances where a client's expressed desire to seek a lawful non-frivolous objective is or should be over-ruled by the lawyer are exceedingly rare - and they should be.
As a practical matter, the client will fire that lawyer and will keep going until he/she finds one that will.
I am sometimes amused when I see that someone else has taken a case that I turned down and gone on to lose it. There's always someone willing to cash a check.
= new reply since forum marked as read
