Crime is bad. So prosecuting criminals is good. Prosecution requires evidence, mainly testimony. So we force witnesses to testify in court, without compensation. Testifying in court might be quite inconvenient for a witness, might subject him or her to retaliation, and might damage her relationships. Yet still we
Louis Vuitton Replicas true that you could be obviously influenced to move on with the selection of the proper accessories because one there’s a chance you’re obtaining with you won’t match with the newest outfits where you may be obviously compelled in carrying on the looking for the new ones with the passage of time.
Her? When did you start doing this? To me this is a sign of writing I can't take seriously. No matter what the subject matter, the writer really just wants to fuck around with the language for the sake of feminist politics.
You can't properly advise your clients as to liability, prospects and likely settlement amount until you have sufficient information. In most cases, clients have some information that is against the interests - to advise them, you need to know this; they need to know they can tell you without it being an issue. The earlier you know, the earlier you can commence settlement negotiations or establish another settlement strategy. Even lawyers can't always predict outcomes accurately - especially at hearing. Clients, sophisticated or otherwise, are less able to do so and have a limited understanding of the nuances of court behavior (eg discount on costs incurred, how 'activist' certain judges may be).
Clients change their willingness to pay as the situation changes - surely this is no revelation. I'd be more concerned if they refused to do so at all.
Robin, the cost of your preference re: guilty clients would exact a substantial time cost on all accused/ litigants and a substantial monetary cost on the taxpayer. I'm not convinced this is worth it.
"JL, yes, I do want the rest in jail, and I don’t want criminals and their supporters to have as easy access to medicine."
Because crime is "bad'! Never mind that the majority of crimes these days are victimless. (And don't bother making this position consistent with other Hansonite views, such as that of rules tending to over-strictness.)
Would Hanson stoop to saying in response, "We should eliminate victimless crimes, rather than consider them in evaluating the rights of 'criminals.'" He would then stir doubts about whether he know's what planet he's on.
This post reads like a flunked Wasson puzzle: Hanson doesn't even think to ask about whether roles higher in status than those of priests, doctors, and lawyers are given comparable privileges? Merely to ask the question refutes Hanson's thesis. Why no senatorial privilege? Why no such privileges for billionaires? Why none for famous professors at elite universities? As with the Wasson puzzles, this question is 50% of what you need to ask to vindicate such an extraordinary thesis; the questions remain unasked, necessarily unanswered.
The states I'm licensed in do not have it and neither does federal law. Some probably have the privilege, but I'd wager that there is no correlation between this area of law and the relative status of doctors in states with or without the privilege.
" Groups can’t lobby for and maintain privileges over a long run unless the wider public accepts them as deserving of such things."
Of course they can. I doubt the wider public believes that insurance companies "deserve" an exemption from antitrust laws and all other federal laws of general application. But I'd be shocked if the wider public even knows about it, or the majority of privileges handed out to interest groups.
I think the pattern isn't status, but "socially useful work that can't really be done without privilege."
Physicians can't do their work without privileged communication, because their clients may withhold information relevant to their treatment.
Attorneys can't do their work without privileged communication, because their employees may withhold information relevant to their legal situation.
Confessors can't do their work without privileged communication, because their clients may withhold information relevant to the stte of their souls.
I myself am a teacher, and to be honest I don't see what information a student might hide from me for fear of prosecution, that would be relevant to his education.
Caveat 1: I'm not sure where spousal privilege fits into this.
Caveat 2: One could argue that the work of priests isn't actually socially useful. Since most Americans think it is, however, the privilege stands. (I wouldn't actually want to see it disappear, because the outcome would not be "some priests testify" but "some priests are punished for refusing to testify." To my knowledge there is not a single recorded incident of a priest violating the seal of the confessional, even on pain of execution.)
This article needs a re-write. I read the entire thing four times and all of the comments once and I still can't figure out what his point is.
Near as I can tell, he's attacking the idea of specific-case privilege with a first principle that they all exist for a single, simple reason which is founded more in generalized psychology and sociology than in narrow utility to legal procedures and disputes. Given this assumption, I suppose the most sensical thing you could come up with would be to Q.E.D. "X is not about Y", but it's rather circular.
That is assuming, of course, that I understand the point at all, which, as mentioned previously, I significantly doubt.
You claim that we provide lawyer/client privilege but not student/teacher or friend/friend privilege not because confidentiality is especially in lawyer/client relationships but because lawyers are a high status special class. But there is other evidence that we consider confidentiality especially important in lawyer/client relationships: namely, that lawyers are forbidden from sharing that information in any context, not just legal proceedings. Note that clients can waive privilege, while lawyers can't. Are you going to call clients higher status than lawyers?
Whether lawyer/client privilege is a good idea is tangential.
The client ultimately makes the call whether to settle. True, A lawyer’s advice about case value will be worse with less information, but if the client knows the hidden information, he can adjust the EV of continuing the suit appropriately. I don’t see atty-clt privilege as a significant factor in the timing of settlements.
This might be true for some very sophisticated clients, but in general it is not true. Clients generally are not very capable of predicting what courts will do and are usually not capable of calculating the EV of a lawsuit.
At least in my experience, in many cases one or both of the parties has an entirely unrealistic view of what the likely outcome is. If the case is to settle, their lawyer has convince them of the actual value of the case. This would not be possible without privilege.
Clients usually lie to you about what they’re willing to pay/accept anyway.
Do you ask clients this? I never would, until during negotiations when it is time to either settle a matter or not. I thought this was by far the most common practice.
All, I doubt there'd be be many spouses or clergy jailed for refusing to testify. First, few actually have criminal relations, second many would be deterred from hearing about or relating to criminals, and third prosecutors have discresion on when to press charges.
JL, yes, I do want the rest in jail, and I don't want criminals and their supporters to have as easy access to medicine.
Fnord, I don't see why requiring folks to not testify makes the situation better.
Oligop and Douglas, I don't think we believe that any act in which a reporter shows interest should not be considered a crime. We still mostly want such acts discouraged.
Just some, people seem proud to live in a society where all citizens have such a privilege.
JAMayes, many US states have med privileges. Groups can't lobby for and maintain privileges over a long run unless the wider public accepts them as deserving of such things.
noematic, I don't want guilty clients to gain such advantages. Innocent clients lose less without attorney privilege. Also, a privilege that benefits clients also benefits their attorneys, as clients are willing to pay more for such a relation.
Almost certainly true. One of the clearest example I can think of is covenants not to compete. They're not enforceable as to lawyers law because judges decided it was too important that a client be able to have the lawyer of his choosing. Want the heart surgeon or anesthetist of your choosing? Better hope they didn't sign a restrictive covenant.
I don't follow how atty-clt aids early settlement. Atty-clt is separate from the settlement discussion privilege, which as you note and as Robin noted has a clear societal benefit.
The client ultimately makes the call whether to settle. True, A lawyer's advice about case value will be worse with less information, but if the client knows the hidden information, he can adjust the EV of continuing the suit appropriately. I don't see atty-clt privilege as a significant factor in the timing of settlements. Clients usually lie to you about what they're willing to pay/accept anyway.
Also, atty-clt privilege directly benefits lawyers' pocketbooks by allowing businesses to cloak business discussions in secrecy by invting the lawyers to the party (think Tobacco). Sure, the utility and secrecy benefit the clients too, but the clients aren't the ones who advocated and lobbied for the rule. And it sure wasn't "the public" who demanded an atty-clt privilege in order to reduce civil litigation and the resulting strain on the court system.
Louis Vuitton Replicas true that you could be obviously influenced to move on with the selection of the proper accessories because one there’s a chance you’re obtaining with you won’t match with the newest outfits where you may be obviously compelled in carrying on the looking for the new ones with the passage of time.
Her? When did you start doing this? To me this is a sign of writing I can't take seriously. No matter what the subject matter, the writer really just wants to fuck around with the language for the sake of feminist politics.
You can't properly advise your clients as to liability, prospects and likely settlement amount until you have sufficient information. In most cases, clients have some information that is against the interests - to advise them, you need to know this; they need to know they can tell you without it being an issue. The earlier you know, the earlier you can commence settlement negotiations or establish another settlement strategy. Even lawyers can't always predict outcomes accurately - especially at hearing. Clients, sophisticated or otherwise, are less able to do so and have a limited understanding of the nuances of court behavior (eg discount on costs incurred, how 'activist' certain judges may be).
Clients change their willingness to pay as the situation changes - surely this is no revelation. I'd be more concerned if they refused to do so at all.
Robin, the cost of your preference re: guilty clients would exact a substantial time cost on all accused/ litigants and a substantial monetary cost on the taxpayer. I'm not convinced this is worth it.
"JL, yes, I do want the rest in jail, and I don’t want criminals and their supporters to have as easy access to medicine."
Because crime is "bad'! Never mind that the majority of crimes these days are victimless. (And don't bother making this position consistent with other Hansonite views, such as that of rules tending to over-strictness.)
Would Hanson stoop to saying in response, "We should eliminate victimless crimes, rather than consider them in evaluating the rights of 'criminals.'" He would then stir doubts about whether he know's what planet he's on.
This post reads like a flunked Wasson puzzle: Hanson doesn't even think to ask about whether roles higher in status than those of priests, doctors, and lawyers are given comparable privileges? Merely to ask the question refutes Hanson's thesis. Why no senatorial privilege? Why no such privileges for billionaires? Why none for famous professors at elite universities? As with the Wasson puzzles, this question is 50% of what you need to ask to vindicate such an extraordinary thesis; the questions remain unasked, necessarily unanswered.
The states I'm licensed in do not have it and neither does federal law. Some probably have the privilege, but I'd wager that there is no correlation between this area of law and the relative status of doctors in states with or without the privilege.
" Groups can’t lobby for and maintain privileges over a long run unless the wider public accepts them as deserving of such things."
Of course they can. I doubt the wider public believes that insurance companies "deserve" an exemption from antitrust laws and all other federal laws of general application. But I'd be shocked if the wider public even knows about it, or the majority of privileges handed out to interest groups.
I think the pattern isn't status, but "socially useful work that can't really be done without privilege."
Physicians can't do their work without privileged communication, because their clients may withhold information relevant to their treatment.
Attorneys can't do their work without privileged communication, because their employees may withhold information relevant to their legal situation.
Confessors can't do their work without privileged communication, because their clients may withhold information relevant to the stte of their souls.
I myself am a teacher, and to be honest I don't see what information a student might hide from me for fear of prosecution, that would be relevant to his education.
Caveat 1: I'm not sure where spousal privilege fits into this.
Caveat 2: One could argue that the work of priests isn't actually socially useful. Since most Americans think it is, however, the privilege stands. (I wouldn't actually want to see it disappear, because the outcome would not be "some priests testify" but "some priests are punished for refusing to testify." To my knowledge there is not a single recorded incident of a priest violating the seal of the confessional, even on pain of execution.)
This article needs a re-write. I read the entire thing four times and all of the comments once and I still can't figure out what his point is.
Near as I can tell, he's attacking the idea of specific-case privilege with a first principle that they all exist for a single, simple reason which is founded more in generalized psychology and sociology than in narrow utility to legal procedures and disputes. Given this assumption, I suppose the most sensical thing you could come up with would be to Q.E.D. "X is not about Y", but it's rather circular.
That is assuming, of course, that I understand the point at all, which, as mentioned previously, I significantly doubt.
You claim that we provide lawyer/client privilege but not student/teacher or friend/friend privilege not because confidentiality is especially in lawyer/client relationships but because lawyers are a high status special class. But there is other evidence that we consider confidentiality especially important in lawyer/client relationships: namely, that lawyers are forbidden from sharing that information in any context, not just legal proceedings. Note that clients can waive privilege, while lawyers can't. Are you going to call clients higher status than lawyers?
Whether lawyer/client privilege is a good idea is tangential.
The client ultimately makes the call whether to settle. True, A lawyer’s advice about case value will be worse with less information, but if the client knows the hidden information, he can adjust the EV of continuing the suit appropriately. I don’t see atty-clt privilege as a significant factor in the timing of settlements.
This might be true for some very sophisticated clients, but in general it is not true. Clients generally are not very capable of predicting what courts will do and are usually not capable of calculating the EV of a lawsuit.
At least in my experience, in many cases one or both of the parties has an entirely unrealistic view of what the likely outcome is. If the case is to settle, their lawyer has convince them of the actual value of the case. This would not be possible without privilege.
Clients usually lie to you about what they’re willing to pay/accept anyway.
Do you ask clients this? I never would, until during negotiations when it is time to either settle a matter or not. I thought this was by far the most common practice.
and i thought justice was blind. boy do i feel silly
All, I doubt there'd be be many spouses or clergy jailed for refusing to testify. First, few actually have criminal relations, second many would be deterred from hearing about or relating to criminals, and third prosecutors have discresion on when to press charges.
JL, yes, I do want the rest in jail, and I don't want criminals and their supporters to have as easy access to medicine.
Fnord, I don't see why requiring folks to not testify makes the situation better.
Oligop and Douglas, I don't think we believe that any act in which a reporter shows interest should not be considered a crime. We still mostly want such acts discouraged.
Just some, people seem proud to live in a society where all citizens have such a privilege.
JAMayes, many US states have med privileges. Groups can't lobby for and maintain privileges over a long run unless the wider public accepts them as deserving of such things.
noematic, I don't want guilty clients to gain such advantages. Innocent clients lose less without attorney privilege. Also, a privilege that benefits clients also benefits their attorneys, as clients are willing to pay more for such a relation.
Patrick, it apparently is a rule in Keene New Hampshire, where a man was jailed for wearing a hat in court.
Almost certainly true. One of the clearest example I can think of is covenants not to compete. They're not enforceable as to lawyers law because judges decided it was too important that a client be able to have the lawyer of his choosing. Want the heart surgeon or anesthetist of your choosing? Better hope they didn't sign a restrictive covenant.
I don't follow how atty-clt aids early settlement. Atty-clt is separate from the settlement discussion privilege, which as you note and as Robin noted has a clear societal benefit.
The client ultimately makes the call whether to settle. True, A lawyer's advice about case value will be worse with less information, but if the client knows the hidden information, he can adjust the EV of continuing the suit appropriately. I don't see atty-clt privilege as a significant factor in the timing of settlements. Clients usually lie to you about what they're willing to pay/accept anyway.
Also, atty-clt privilege directly benefits lawyers' pocketbooks by allowing businesses to cloak business discussions in secrecy by invting the lawyers to the party (think Tobacco). Sure, the utility and secrecy benefit the clients too, but the clients aren't the ones who advocated and lobbied for the rule. And it sure wasn't "the public" who demanded an atty-clt privilege in order to reduce civil litigation and the resulting strain on the court system.
Here is the link to the article: