can you hire a witness as your lawyer to exclude their testimony? I'm was just watching &quot;American Crime Story&quot; season 1 (O.J. Simpson trial), episode 4, around 38:30. The prosecutors were discussing the case when one asked about the testimony of Robert Kardashian, O.J. Simpson's best friend. God are they guilty! What does Kardashian say? We're screwed on Kardashian. Now he's O.J.'s lawyer, so he's privileged. He doesn't have to talk.... This seems like a major loophole. Since Robert Kardashian was a long-time friend of Simpson before he was ever his lawyer, it would seem fair that the prosecutors could ask him about events previous to his being hired. If there were one star witness on the opposing side and they happened to be a lawyer, could you simply pay them off by hiring them as your lawyer? Could you do this multiple times? If you committed a crime at a law-firm and everyone who witnessed it was a lawyer, is there any rule preventing you from just hiring all of them?
can you hire a witness as your lawyer to exclude their testimony? That is pure fiction and misleading. Unfortunately scenes like that contribute to keep people ignorant about the law, which then makes it easier for courts to dissimulate their recurrent miscarriage of justice. But Purdue University v. Wartell, 5 N.E.3d 797 (2014) is an example where the Indiana courts did the right thing, and is pertinent to your question. There, Purdue University first assigned an investigator in regard to plaintiff's grievance, and thereafter the University tried to withhold information under pretext that the investigator was also its lawyer and thus that the information was protected by the privilege. Because that person hitherto had been portrayed only as an independent investigator, the Indiana courts concluded that Purdue University was estopped from invoking the attorney-client privilege (as well as the work-product doctrine). Thus, the guy in the film or series who said to be "screwed on Kardashian" reflects pure cluelessness about how the law supposedly operates. I have not seen the plot of that film or series, but the information that the friend-lawyer obtained prior to becoming O.J.'s attorney would not be protected by the privilege because it was not obtained in preparation for O.J.'s defense. If there were one star witness on the opposing side and they happened to be a lawyer, could you simply pay them off by hiring them as your lawyer? This question is somewhat unclear to me, but I will mention that lawyers have a duty to disclose to their potential or actual client any conflict of interests. The rules of so-called "professional conduct" discourage lawyers to ignore conflict of interests in that this conflict may impair their "services". And, as I explained previously, any information that a lawyer obtains as witness rather than as attorney in the matter is not protected by the privilege. Thus, as for If you committed a crime at a law-firm and everyone who witnessed it was a lawyer, is there any rule preventing you from just hiring all of them? the answer is: Nothing prevents the criminal from hiring all of them, but that information is not protected.
&quot;The whole truth&quot; is part of a formulaic phrase which has been operationalized to mean merely &quot;don't commit perjury.&quot; A witness simply answers the questions asked and is not permitted to go further. The witness is at the mercy of the lawyer's whims. The witness does not have a right to testify beyond the scope of the question asked. It is improper for a lawyer to cut off a witness when in the middle of providing an answer to the question asked, but those points are for the other side's lawyer and the judge to raise, not the witness. If the answer of a witness to the question asked on cross-examination leaves a false impression, it is up to the other side's lawyer to correct that by asking additional redirect examination questions of the witness in our adversary system. Asking questions that when answered truthfully leave a false impression because the answer presents an incomplete version of the whole story is standard practice in lawyering. This tactic is less effective, however, in jurisdictions like Colorado where judges and juries can also ask their own questions of witnesses once the lawyers are finished asking their questions.
The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination applies only in criminal trials, but it permits a witness to refuse to answer a question in either criminal or civil cases, including in a deposition. If he had committed crimes or thought that his answers might have incriminated him, he should have declined to answer. I'm not terribly familiar with this case, but it occurs to me that a lot of the allegations against Cosby go pretty far back; it could be that he was talking about something so far back that he wasn't exposed to any criminal liability. In a case like that, it may even be that a judge had already ordered him to answer the question. Assuming that he voluntarily answered the question, he has waived his right against self-incrimination and the testimony is generally admissible.
Only in a civil case Yes, in a civil case, Alice generally can call Bob as a witness to take the stand. In many cases, this is done very early, locking in their testimony, before expert witnesses or other evidence by the plaintiff are presented to try and undermine the testimony. Alice may ask only questions that have relevance to the case. Let's take for example a dispute about a contract: Alice may ask Bob if he engaged in negotiations to form the contract, about the matter of the contract, if he signed the contract, or how he (or his employees) fulfilled (or not) the contract. Pretty much everything that pertains to the contract or the execution thereof. This does not extend to the settlement of the case or attempts thereof. Alice may not ask if Bob has an affair with Clarice unless that somehow is material to the contract at hand. Alice may not re-ask questions where an objection was sustained in the same way. However, Bob might not need to answer all questions (there are things that are banned from being asked), especially as Bob's attorney will object to questions. A few examples of competent questioning can be seen towards the end of My Cousin Vinnie, though this is a criminal trial. Never in a criminal trial In a criminal trial, not only can the prosecution not call Bob to the stand, he has to elect to go to the stand to even be questioned by the prosecution. That is because he can &quot;plead the 5th&quot;. There is a tiny exception for civil cases, where they can do so there too.
It's no fantastic legal source, and rules may vary in different countries, but from the Wikipedia article on Attorney client privilege: Lawyers may also breach the duty where they are defending themselves against disciplinary or legal proceedings. A client who initiates proceedings against a lawyer effectively waives rights to confidentiality. This is justified on grounds of procedural fairness—a lawyer unable to reveal information relating to the retainer would be unable to defend themselves against such action. In other words, if the client's lie is related to one of the lawyer's interests (for example, if the client sues the attorney for malpractice based on the advice he was given), the lawyer can break privilege on his own behalf, thus testifying that his client lied. As to the specific case you brought up, I would say that privilege wouldn't protect the client from the lawyer discussing things never brought up. In other words, we could force the attorney to testify, since one of two things is true: The attorney really did give him that advice, in which case the client has already voluntarily given up his right to confidentiality by describing what was said between them, or The lawyer never gave him that advice, and privilege wouldn't protect a conversation between the two that never transpired.
Such an action by the lawyer is certainly unethical, but there is no automatic or routine mechanism to detect it and give better advice to Rob, at least not in the US. Rob could get a second opinion, but criminal defendants do not often do this, and there is no requirement to do so. If the situation is extreme, it might be reported, after the fact, and the lawyer sanctioned. But no one is ever required to do a plea bargain, and there is always a chance, even if only a very small one, that a jury will acquit. Whether to try for a trial is a judgement call. That makes it hard to deal with the unethical intention, which the lawyer presumably did not tell anyone about. Rob's only practical protection is to pick a lawyer with a good reputation for not doing that sort of thing, and reputations can be misleading. If Rob does not have money he may not be able to choose at all, but then the lawyer will not be tempted to go to trial to &quot;suck money out of&quot; Rob, because there will be none to suck. In that case the lawyer may, indeed, be tempted not to go to trial when (rarely) that would be in Rob's best interest. Rob would have little protection against that.
Cohen has ethical problems, but this is probably pretty far down the list. If he were lying about the law, though, that could be treated as a violation of Rule 4.1 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct: In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a third person. It could also be a violation of Rule 8.4: A lawyer or law firm shall not ... (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; Although these would be violations of his ethical obligations, they probably do not rise to the level of seriousness that would result in any meaningful punishment. Disbarment would be extremely unlikely, though a censure is conceivable. If someone reported the offense, I would actually expect that the state would decline to investigate at all. Of course, all of this assumes that he was deliberately lying about the state of the law, which I think overestimates his competence. More likely, he's just an idiot and didn't know that he was wrong. Importantly, being wrong about the law isn't unethical; it's a presumption at the foundation of our adversarial justice system.
Only a jury can answer your question, and then on a case-by-case basis. When a witness testifies, the question of whether and to what extent to believe/disbelieve a witness is nearly 100% the decision of the jury (or the judge in a bench trial). In a criminal trial, at least, if a thousand disinterested nuns can take the stand and give identical testimony that Defendant robbed the bank, and Defendant's mother says he was actually with her on a Bahamas cruise at the time of the robbery (nevermind the fact that he was arrested exiting the bank), the jury is 100 percent free to conclude the nuns are lying and the mother is telling the truth. Likewise, if Superman is on trial, the jury would be free to believe or disbelieve whomever they chose if the only evidence they had to rely on was (1) Lex Luthor's testimony that he hates Superman and saw him kill Doctor Light; and (2) Lois Lane's testimony that she loves Superman and saw Lex Luthor do it. The jury's right to weigh credibility is hundreds of years old. The question of how to weigh this evidence -- and the answer, which is that it is essentially left entirely to the jury -- is among the most well-settled principles of common-law evidence. See, e.g., Blackstone, Commentaries, 3:354 (1768) (&quot;All others are competent witnesses; though the jury from other circumstances will judge of their credibility.&quot;). Jury instructions therefore routinely advise jurors that they may consider a witness's prejudices for or against the defendant and conclude that his statements are not reliable, whether because he is lying or simply too biased to reliably remember the events in question. United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 52, 105 S. Ct. 465, 469 (1984) (&quot;Bias is a term used in the 'common law of evidence' to describe the relationship between a party and a witness which might lead the witness to slant, unconsciously or otherwise, his testimony in favor of or against a party. Bias may be induced by a witness' like, dislike, or fear of a party, or by the witness' self-interest.&quot;). You can follow the trail of cases supporting this position quite a ways back. I stopped when I reached Honegger v. Wettstein, 94 N.Y. 252 (1883), a case where a manufacturer sued members of a firm that had bought its goods but never paid. At trial, a principal of the firm testified about the invoiced amount to be paid, and because the testimony was uncontradicted, the judge ordered a directed verdict in favor of the buyers. But the New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the credibility of a biased witness's testimony must be left to the jury: Although not contradicted, he was an interested party, and had a direct interest in increasing the fund in the hands of the receiver, and in preventing its payment to the plaintiffs. His evidence was given for the purpose of showing the alleged violation of law by the plaintiffs, and in explanation of the three invoices which were made of the goods, of which duplicates were made, and it was a fair question for the jury to say whether he might not have been influenced by the circumstances stated. Ten years later, the Supreme Court addressed your question a bit more directly. In Reagan v. United States, 157 U.S. 301 (1895), a defendant who took the stand was convicted after the trial court told the jury that &quot;Where the witness has a direct personal interest in the result of the suit the temptation is strong to color, pervert, or withhold the facts.&quot; But the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that &quot;the court may, and sometimes ought, to remind the jury that interest creates a motive for false testimony.&quot; Modern courts permit, but do not require, instructions highlighting a specific witness's bias. These cases of course deal with witnesses who have a bias in favor of a party, but the rule is no different in cases where a witness, as in your question, admits to a bias against a party. In United States v. Coleman, 887 F.2d 266 (6th Cir. 1989), for instance, a defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit arson. Because the only direct evidence of his agreement to the arson was testimony from a witness &quot;who admitted a bias against defendant,&quot; he sought a judgment of acquittal, but the trial court denied his motion and sent the case to a jury. The Sixth Circuit affirmed his conviction, holding that it was up to the jury to decide whether the witness was credible: As defendant points out on appeal, Boscaglia's credibility was very much in issue at trial, but the jury resolved the issue against defendant. The jury's decision on &quot;the credibility of witnesses is not reviewable on appeal.&quot; Although such instructions are allowed, this does not mean that a court is always required to give an instruction addressing the credibility of a specific witness. Depending on who the witness is biased for/against, there are likewise cases saying that no instruction was necessarily required, Kovacich v. Spearman, No. 2:13-cv-0985 KJM DAD P, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108233 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2015) (denying habeas claim by defendant who unsuccessfully sought jury instructions highlighting the bias of the investigating officer), or that such an instruction is a bad idea but not disallowed, United States v. Jones, 372 F. App'x 343, 345 (3d Cir. 2010) (&quot;While such an instruction that singles out the defendant's interest in the case is not advisable, we find that here it did not constitute reversible error.&quot;). I haven't found any saying that such an instruction was a reversible error, though I suspect that there are cases out there in which verdicts were reversed because the judge went overboard in suggesting to a jury how much credibility they should extend an admittedly biased witness.