San Francisco Skyline
BILL OF RIGHTS-- First Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.-- Second Amendment -A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed-- Third Amendment - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law-- Fourth Amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.-- Fifth Amendment - No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.--Sixth Amendment - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.-- Seventh Amendment - In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law-- Eighth Amendment - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted-- Ninth Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people--Tenth Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people--.
Taking the Fifth-A Criminal Law Blog
RSS icon Email icon Bullet (black)
  • ILLINOIS LAWYER INDICTED IN MURDER FOR HIRE SCHEME

    Posted on August 29th, 2011 zshapiro No comments

    An Illinois lawyer has been indicted for attempting to hire a government agent to kill his girl friend’s ex husband. He has been charged in a seven count indictment including three counts of using his phone and two counts of using his car in an effort to hire a man to kill the ex husband.

    Certainly if the charges are true he is ethically deprived. But the ethical problems should have been apparent before he offered to pay several different people to kill the man. The news stories vary as to what actually happened. Above the Law says that the ex husband is a former client of Jason W. Smiekel, the accused. The Daily Herald says that Smiekel represented his current girl friend who is the victim’s ex wife in divorce proceedings. In either case ethical problems arise. If he represented the husband in the divorce and he was romantically interested in the wife, it is quite doubtfully that he zealously represented his client the husband. If he represented the wife in the divorce proceedings problems also occur. Going through a divorce is extremely difficult. It is an emotionally difficult period and to be be romantically courted by your attorney raises question about whether he is representing his client or himself. Both instances raise serious conflict of interest issues. As an attorney he should only be concerned with the interests of his client. Neither his own interests or the interests of the opposing party should concern him. Regardless of whether he represented the husband or the wife interests besides that of his client had to be considered.

    The preamble to the Illinois Rules of Professional conduct states: “The lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence. Such confidence only can be maintained if the lawyer acts competently and zealously pursues the client’s interests within the bounds of the law. ” Rule 1.7(b) states

    A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer’s own interests, unless:

    (1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and

    (2) the client consents after disclosure.

    Section 8.4(a) states

    (a) A lawyer shall not:

    (1) violate or attempt to violate these Rules;

    (2) induce another to engage in conduct, or give assistance to another’s conduct, when the lawyer knows that conduct will violate these Rules;

    (3) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

    (4) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. . .

    Regardless of the result of the criminal charges I presume the Disciplinary Commission will have its work laid out for it.

    Leave a Reply