What kind of lawyer would a witness need to protect themselves My wife used to work for a company 'A'. Some employees of that company, as well as some state employees are being sued in federal court for civil rights violations (my wife is not named in the suit). The company is paying for counsel for the defendants that worked for them at the time. That counsel has reached out to my wife saying that the plaintiff wants to depose her. There has been no contact between plaintiff's counsel and my wife. I have concerns about this one sided contact. My wife feels she did everything right in regards to the matter, and I trust her opinion. However I'm encouraging her to retain counsel to make sure neither side tries take advantage. My question is, what kind of lawyer should we be looking for? My wife has no interest in helping either party beyond the extent required by law and would prefer to not have to testify in person since the trial is currently in a court that is more than 5 hours away from where we live.
She would want a litigation attorney that specializes in this kind of case. For instance if the underlying issue is an OSHA violation, there may be questions that imply a degree of culpability by the witness, and an attorney who knows that area of law (as opposed to copyright or drug-trafficking) would be in the best position to protect the interests of the witness.
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.
In the US, they would not be automatically prosecuted. The prosecutor would have to find out about the testimony, decide to prosecute, and go through all the normal processes they otherwise would, but they have an additional piece of evidence. Per the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution, a witness cannot be forced to answer a question that would incriminate them. If the question was objected to on this ground and the objection overruled, the witness' answer would not be admissible against that witness at trial, and the prosecutor would have to prove the case using other evidence.
The answer to this question will be almost entirely informed by the why that you've asked us not to consider. If the prosecutor or judge is a witness, the defendant should be able to call them, but that also means they would have to withdraw from the case under either Rule 3.7 or Canon 3. If the defendant believes the prosecution is tainted by some improper motive, the defendant may raise that objection under Crim. R. 12, but he must do so pretrial. I can't think of any circumstances where the defendant could question the judge or prosecutor in the jury's presence.
Smith makes three arguments in his appeal, that the trial court erred by: allowing Smith's trial counsel to withdraw on the sixth day of trial and failing to appoint substitute counsel for Smith thereafter, and that the private substitute counsel Smith retained was presumptively ineffective based upon the amount of time he had to review Smith's case before proceeding with the trial. Smith does not raise the question that you mention: the law against choosing between testifying and having counsel. That question was raised by the state's attorney: There are cases that say the [c]ourt cannot make a defendant choose between the right to testify and the right to counsel... [T]here is a Hobson's choice here between Mr. Smith testifying and Mr. Smith having an attorney. And the courts have ruled at times that there can't be a choice between those things. Speaking of Hobson's choice: United States ex rel. Wilcox v. Johnson, 555 F. 2d 115 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 1977 the appellee here "was put to a Hobson's choice": decline to testify and lose the opportunity of conveying his version of the facts to the jury, or take the stand and forego his fundamental right to be assisted by counsel. The Trial Judge thus conditioned the exercise of Mr. Wilcox's statutory right to testify upon the waiver of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This was an impermissible infringement upon the appellee's right to testify and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. also: US v. Scott, 909 F. 2d 488 - Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 1990 To advise [the defendant] that he could be precluded from testifying, without confirmation that [the defendant] intended to commit perjury, or could proceed pro se impermissibly forced Scott to choose between two constitutionally protected rights. and: Wilson v. State, 12 So.3d 292 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009) This case concerns a defendant's desire to testify in greater detail about the incidents giving rise to the criminal charges, confronted by his attorney's belief that more testimony was not a good idea. The judge offered the defendant the choice of testifying further by giving up his attorney, and representing himself. The defendant chose not to testify. We hold that the trial court improperly forced a choice between two constitutional rights, and reverse. Here is a really recent case where The Connecticut Supreme Court gave defendant a new trial after his lawyer quit (went into snooze mode) when the defendant insisted on testifying. State of Connecticut v. Maurice Francis, (SC 19305) The record reflects that the court and defense counsel understood the defendant to be self-represented during his testimony. Defense counsel made it abundantly clear that they had no intention of representing the defendant should he testify and would file a motion to withdraw if necessary to avoid doing so. After canvassing the defendant regarding the pitfalls of proceeding pro se, the trial court ruled that it would have to let the defendant ‘‘self-represent . . . during this point . . . .’’ Consistent with this ruling, the court’s docket sheet reflects the court clerk’s notations indicating that, for purposes of the defendant’s testimony only, the defendant was allowed to represent himself and standby counsel was appointed. It further indicated that, for the remainder of the trial, counsel was retained to represent the defendant. Because of this ruling, defense counsel did not need to file a motion to withdraw, as their temporary status as standby counsel remedied the representation problem that they had sought to avoid. An interesting distinction among these cases is the reason the attorney conditioned representation on withholding testimony. One reason is ethical &ndash; knowledge that the client is going to lie. The other reason is strategic; the attorney thinks the witness will hurt the case. Edit to discuss the ethics question as it was brought up in the comments. Comment: However the defendant did not lie, the lawyer provided no evidence the defendant did lie, and the lawyer never stated why/how/what he thought the defendant might lie about. The lawyer did not tell the court, and could not ethically tell the court. The superior court said: Difficulty may be encountered if withdrawal is based on the client's demand that the lawyer engage in unprofessional conduct. The court may request an explanation for the withdrawal, while the lawyer may be bound to keep confidential the facts that would constitute such an explanation. The lawyer's statement that professional considerations require termination of the representation ordinarily should be accepted as sufficient. Lawyers should be mindful of their obligations to both clients and the court under Rules 1.6 and 3.3. The lawyer mentioned 1.16 as the reason he needed to withdraw. It basically says you can't represent someone if the representation would be an ethics violation: Rule 1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation (a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if: (1) the representation will result in violation of law or the Rules of Professional Conduct; (2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client; or (3) the lawyer is discharged. And then Comment 3 says that if a lawyer wants to withdraw because of an ethics conflict the judge may let him go without further inquiry. Comment 3 When a lawyer has been appointed to represent a client, withdrawal ordinarily requires approval of the appointing authority. Similarly, court approval or notice to the court is often required by applicable law before a lawyer withdraws from pending litigation. Difficulty may be encountered if withdrawal is based on the client's demand that the lawyer engage in unprofessional conduct. The court may request an explanation for the withdrawal, while the lawyer may be bound to keep confidential the facts that would constitute such an explanation. The lawyer's statement that professional considerations require termination of the representation ordinarily should be accepted as sufficient. Lawyers should be mindful of their obligations to both clients and the court under Rules 1.6 and 3.3. However, the appellate court writes that the trial court could have asked about comment 2 which says that suggestion of perjury is not enough to force withdrawal. Comment 2 lawyer ordinarily must decline or withdraw from representation if the client demands that the lawyer engage in conduct that is illegal or violates the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. The lawyer is not obliged to decline or withdraw simply because the client suggests such a course of conduct; a client may make such a suggestion in the hope that a lawyer will not be constrained by a professional obligation. But, and this is the big but - this is not enough for the appellate court to overturn the trial court. ...we may not consider the correctness of the court's ruling de novo or second guess its exercise of discretion... Rather, we are limited to a determination of whether the court's decision was “manifestly unsupported by reason or so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” The rule violation at risk here is 3.3(a)(3): (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly... offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer's client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. It's comment 9 that the state wanted the trial court to consider. It seems to me that she wanted to hint to the defense attorney that he could ethically hear the testimony if he didn't know that it was false. Comment 9 Although paragraph (a)(3) only prohibits a lawyer from offering evidence the lawyer knows to be false, it permits the lawyer to refuse to offer testimony or other proof that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. Offering such proof may reflect adversely on the lawyer's ability to discriminate in the quality of evidence and thus impair the lawyer's effectiveness as an advocate. Because of the special protections historically provided criminal defendants, however, this Rule does not permit a lawyer to refuse to offer the testimony of such a client where the lawyer reasonably believes but does not know that the testimony will be false. Unless the lawyer knows the testimony will be false, the lawyer must honor the client's decision to testify. It seems to me that comment 8 is more helpful, but I wasn't there. Comment 8 The prohibition against offering false evidence only applies if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false. A lawyer's reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact. A lawyer's knowledge that evidence is false, however, can be inferred from the circumstances. See Rule 1.0(g). Thus, although a lawyer should resolve doubts about the veracity of testimony or other evidence in favor of the client, the lawyer cannot ignore an obvious falsehood.
The term "lawyer up" usually refers to a person asserting their right to silence and counsel, which means that police interrogation must stop. A lawyer would "lawyer up" in that sense if he was being interrogated by the law. Michael Cohen, on the other hand, retained an attorney because of the threat of legal interrogation. As a general rule, absolutely everyone who is the subject of a legal investigation should seek legal counsel, to protect their rights. Although lawyers are broadly trained in many aspects of the law, they aren't experts in all such aspects, so it would probably not be wise for a tax attorney to defend himself in a criminal trial, and a family law expert might not be the best guy to hire to advise you on a complex real estate matter. Since the particular case is highly political, added insulation in the form of an attorney between you and the investigators is to be expected.
I think you would do much better to describe the situation, and the result you wish to achieve. Include enough detail for the lawyer to understand the nature of the case, but keep it brief. More details should come once the lawyer has agreed to take the case, or to give you an interview/consultation to discuss it. Later in your letter, if you like, you might include &quot;We understand that ORC 2741.02, 2741.06, and 2741.07 may give us a basis for suit&quot; but I would not go into any more detail about the law in an initial letter. If during the consultation (in person or by phone or zoom or some such), the lawyer does not mention laws you have learned of and think relevant, you could mention them and ask why the lawyer is not addressing them. The lawyer does not need or want to be told what you think the law is, the lawyer needs to know what the situation is and what you hope to do about it. That includes who &quot;we&quot; are. Update As the answer from ohwilleke says, a telephone all might be better than a letter. But in either case, the key things the lawyer will need to know are: 1) who are you?; 2) what is the situation you are concerned with (details may be important here)?; 3) what do you want to accomplish through the lawyer's services?; 4) who are the other parties involved? You will want to learn: Does the lawyer m(olr law firm) handle that sort of case?; Are they willing to take you on as clients?; 3) Hpw much experience has this lawyer had with this sort of case?; 4) What are the likely upfront costs?; and 5) What are the chances of success? Items 4 and 5 may not get answers in a first round of contacts. 2nd update, based on revised letter You still start with a statement of the law you think give you a claim. Please do not do that. In this draft letter you do not say anything about the actual problem you have or what you want done until the sixth and next to last paragraph of the letter. Even then you are not very clear on what you want the lawyer to do. &quot;we find ourselves forced to learn how to sue an ex-customer&quot; sounds as if you are asking for education, not legal services. I would suggest something more like: We are an association of traditional artisans. An Ohio business {insert business name} that had formerly purchased and resold some of our work has been using the images of us and our families to advertise its goods without permission. We want this stopped and also want monetary damages for past use. We think we may have a claim under {ORC sections}. In any case we want this stopped by whatever legal process would be most appropriate. That puts the situation first, your desire second, and any comment about the law later (or it could be left out).
You want a lawyer who accepts tenant-side landlord tenant cases, usually a solo practitioner or small law firm or legal clinic. Medium to large sized law firms usually don't practice that kind of law at all, or only represent landlords, as a matter of policy. The usual problem, however, is that lawyers are often too expensive relative to the amount in controversy to make sense to hire to fully represent you in a matter like this one. You might want to have a "limited engagement" such as a one time consult with a lawyer, rather than a full retention of a lawyer, over an issue like this one.