主题：【翻译】纽约律师职业责任准则--第四章 -- 南方有嘉木
土了 土了
牛啊，牛啊！
哈哈，玩笑一下
赶紧找地方匿了。
其实花道兄的名字才牛，我那时候看《灌篮高手》，就很喜欢樱木，尤其他每次急着上场，就去按安息老师的下巴，太可爱了
把frank置换成某富豪老板，conley置换成他手下的门卫，场景换成当下的中国。
门卫的律师如果告发门卫并声称富豪无辜，媒体和网民的舆论会是怎样一种情景？
跑个题，没有好莱坞根据这个事件写个剧本吗，感觉是很好的题材。
程序正义至少是有可以因循的法则和思路，当然他不会十全十美，永远有可以完善的地方。
民意相对来说具有更多的盲点和不可确定的因素存在。从理性的角度来看程序正义应该凌驾于民意之上，辛普森案可以说是其中的经典。换句话来说，民意不用承担法律责任，随着一个新证据的出现民意可能来个180度的转身，而程序并没有如此的回旋余地。
具体到目前国内的环境来说，我觉得程序正义更应该得到认同和推广。
对法律一窍不通全凭直觉码的东西，砸轻点。
恭喜：你意外获得【通宝】一枚
鲜花已经成功送出。
此次送花为【有效送花赞扬，涨乐善、声望】
相关影视改编：
The Leo Frank story has been explored in various art forms.
Murder in Harlem (1935), by director Oscar Micheaux, was one of three films he made based on events in the Leo Frank trial. He portrayed the character analogous to Frank as guilty and set the film in New York, removing sectional conflict as one of the cultural forces in the trial. In this version the Frank character was instead a "Boston Brahmin". Micheaux's first version was a silent film The Gunsaulus Mystery (1921). Lem Hawkins Confession (1935) was also related to the Leo Frank trial.
The film They Won't Forget (1937) was inspired by the Frank case, with the Leo Frank character portrayed as a Christian.
After the publication of 1980s testimony by Alonzo Mann, the case was revisited in the 1988 made-for-TV movie, The Murder of Mary Phagan, starring Jack Lemmon, Peter Gallagher, and Kevin Spacey.----我打算把这个找出来看一遍，我很喜欢Kevin Spacey。
David Mamet explored the case in his novel The Old Religion (1997), using it to look at Jewish-American experience and history.
Playwright Alfred Uhry and composer Jason Robert Brown created the musical Parade, produced on Broadway in 1998. It won the 1999 Tony Award for Best Score and Best Book of a Musical. Although it received mixed reviews and had a short run in New York, the production started a national tour in 2000. Parade is still produced around the world.
看完了，背绿军包上自习。
在这个案子里，客户没有告诉律师他是有罪的，而是律师自己发现的。也就是说是这个客户先违反了这个信任，而律师是对客户的欺骗作反应。因为Conley的欺骗，这个律师失去了不接这个案子选择，而不得不采取极端做法。所以他的做法才会有争论。而现在的律师法则中对这一点好像也有规定。
1.事实问题：
本案中，虽然Conley没有自承有罪，但律师William的调查发现在多大程度上和Conley的陈述有关？----没有看到William的报告，很难确知。
而就被告自述和律师调查之间的区别而言，我赞成D-Cady Herrick的观点，即：
“在我看来这种区别是不可能的。律师经调查发现的事实通常都是基于其客户所告知的信息。如果不是因为律师和客户之间的关系，以及客户的告知，律师根本就不会进行调查（嘉木：或者说律师根本就得不到线索或机会去推进调查）。至少就“沉默之印”这个问题来看，我没看到任何不同。”
这和刑事诉讼法上的“毒树之果”的原则有点像，就是证据的最初来源是不法的，然后这个证据不能被采用。律师调查得来的结果如果最初是来自于客户提供的线索，那么这个结果也应受保密的约束，除非信息来源和客户的陈述完全无关。
2. 法律问题：
客户是否有权对律师隐瞒真相，甚至撒谎？----我认为客户是没有义务告诉律师真相的，客户有权得到最好的辩护，客户有权无后顾之忧地将自己的命运托付给辩护人，这些是他们的权利，他们可以选择如何行使。律师有义务维护客户对他们的信赖，客户没有义务去给与这种信赖。
在律师得知客户撒谎（注意：不是沉默。客户如果就某事实不发表意见，不构成撒谎，他有权沉默）的情形下，律师首先要试图说服客户不要做伪证。如果客户已经对法庭做伪证，或构成欺诈，律师要帮助消除影响。如果无法做到，律师有权，甚至在某些情形下必须拒绝代理----主贴引用的纽约州律师职业道德规则D2-110赋予律师withdrawal的权利。
给渔樵兄引一段说明（我晚上再帮忙翻出来）：
Issue #1
One of your clients has stated repeatedly, "Just put me on the stand and I'll lie my way to an acquittal." Let's assume that you are 100% certain that your client intends to follow through with his promise to lie on the stand if called to testify. What must you do?
Answer to Issue #1
If a lawyer is certain that his client intends to commit perjury, the lawyer must first attempt to persuade the client to testify truthfully. If the client still intends to lie, the lawyer must threaten to reveal the client's intent to commit perjury to the judge. If the threat of disclosure does not alter the client's plan, then the lawyer must do whatever is necessary to prevent the commission of perjury by his client, including, but not limited to, disclosing his client's intent to lie to the judge.
Issue #2
A client that you're defending was arrested and booked under the name, "Benjamin Franklin." Throughout your representation, you hear several of his friends and relatives call him, "Sean." One day, you ask your client why people frequently refer to him as "Sean" as opposed to "Benjamin." Your client candidly reveals to you that "Benjamin" is not his real name. He explains that he provided the arresting officer a fake name in an attempt to conceal the fact that he had an arrest record dating back to the "Disco Crisis." As his attorney, must you inform the court? Additionally, are you ethically obligated to reveal to the court your client's true identity?
Answer to Issue #2
A criminal defense attorney, who learns that his client, a defendant in a criminal proceeding, is using an alias, may not inform the court of same. The reasons why the attorney shall not reveal his client's fake name to the court includes: The attorney-client privilege, the client's constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, and the client's constitutionally guaranteed right to effective assistance of counsel.
However, an attorney must take action when their client is involved in an activity that would constitute commission of a crime or a fraud on the court. For example, if the client desired to testify at trial and insisted upon using his false name, then the attorney must advise the client that the attorney cannot aid the client in testifying unless the client is willing to divulge that the name under which the client was charged is not his real name. The attorney is obligated to attempt to persuade the client to respond to any questions truthfully or by asserting an appropriate privilege.
If the client is successful in making a material misrepresentation to the court concerning his true identity, either during a trial or during any court proceeding, the attorney is obligated to take "reasonable remedial measures" to remedy the fraud on the court. Initially, an attorney must attempt to persuade the client to rectify the misrepresentation. If that fails, then the attorney must seek to withdraw, assuming that would remedy the situation. Because withdrawal will rarely remedy the fraud, the attorney may have to remedy the fraud on their own, assuming the client refuses to do so.
If the court asks the attorney and/or the client any questions concerning the client's identity and/or prior record, they may answer truthfully only after the client decides, after consultation with counsel, that doing so is in his or her best interest. The client may also choose to decline to answer based on any applicable privilege.
Issue #3
A client that you're representing states, during her deposition, that she was "far away" from the crime scene on the day that the victim was shot. In fact, she states further that she was in California during the shooting, attending her cousins' graduation. You learn after the deposition that your client intentionally lied. The case is still pending. What, if anything, are you obligated to do?
Answer to Issue #3
Once an attorney learns that his client intentionally committed perjury during a deposition, he must immediately attempt to persuade that client to reveal the fraud to the court. If the client refuses to remedy the fraud herself, the attorney must withdraw from representation and must disclose the perjury committed by his client to the court.
参考链接
影视界不会放过这样的题材，但是没想到最早从1935年就开始了。真有时间的话把这几部片子都找出来结合背景写个评论也是很有意思的事情，可以看到民意在其中的变化曲线。
我说电影局部反应民意应该没有错误吧。
通常情况下，山某是不会和专业人士争人家的专业的，特别是法律问题。不过在这儿就是好玩说一说，有什么不沾边儿的说法请不要客气。别人是抛砖引玉，我这连砖都没有，就送头给砖吧
同意你说的在客户没有必要保证一定要对律师讲出全部真情，也没有必要完全对律师讲实话。可山某的印象里，客户可以不说，但不可以在有记录的情况下说谎。在这个案例里，山某觉得应该是有Issue #3的情况吧。详情大概要去查法庭记录了，可大致上应该有一个类似的deposition，Conley说自己没杀人吧？也就是说从这一步开始，他就在prejury了。所以律师是有权撤消代理，并且向法庭告发。如果他告诉了律师他杀了人，那么律师可以不让他直接回答这个问题。而且在庭审的时候，律师也可以不让他出庭做证。因为Conley没告诉律师实情，正好解脱了律师。
被告有权沉默，但如果开口，那就不能撒谎。
----这个没看到详细的资料，我不敢下定论。从我现在看到的资料来说，我们只能说：
Conley没说自己杀人。
我没有想明白的是，从Frank宣判之后发生的事件来看，我们可以确定Conley在Frank的庭审中作了伪证----但审理的时候William可能并不能确知。William实际发布公告的时候，Frank和Conley的审理都已经结束----时间或时机以及方式这些因素对William的公告及相应的法律责任或职业伦理应有何影响？
但是这些细节本身并不影响我们对律师在客户做伪证的情况下做一般性的讨论。所以我们可以比较确定地说的两个原则就是：
1. 律师对客户所告知的信息负有保密义务；
2. 在律师明知客户撒谎/做伪证时，律师须向法庭告知欺诈或伪证行为的存在，并有权拒绝继续代理。
阿壳兄，可得打醒精神过日子喔，也不能上街时乱看美女，有这么一个“尖牙利嘴”的娘子，后果你是可以想得到的。
噢，没想到这一点。