• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« More Federal Lobbyists Flying Under the Radar, Report Finds | Main | Akin Gump Signs Former Congressman to Bolster Indian Law Practice »

March 21, 2013


William Veaver

The right to council is fundimental. It should conclude a "reasonable" attorney should take all necessary steps to insure that the"client" is "informed" as to the evidence and the steps the AOR is taking to manifest his/her's innocence. Also it should restate that the attorney is "dutie" bound to his client through a "fidicuary" contract that includes the right to reasonable standards of work product for and to the client. When a laywer fails to completely "inform" regarding any instance of the case he/she breaches that bond and is liable for it. When an attorney chooses not to act in regards to the client's intrest's then he/she is breaking the bases of ALL required elements tha t. the seventh ammendment sets forth concerning the right to be represented and to confront your accusers, when the client is incarcerated they "do not" have the ability to participate in the " advisarial fact finding prosess" thefore the attorney is deeply.obligated through the ethics involved to "protect" his/her's clients intrest.( accusations/arealamericanhorrorstory) this artical shows the actual consequences when the failure of the attorney to provide the elements to his/her's client or fails to act apon them.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad