Should Attorneys Who Have Represented Guantanamo Detainees In The Past Be Allowed To Work For The U.s. Dept. Of Justice?

[wessley80]

at least nine Department of Justice attorneys have.

[pascoe69]

[Darrell]

The DOJ is a huge operation.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice  It has many divisions that deal with everything from Antitrust, Civil Rights, Environmental Law and Taxation to mention a few. Their personnel also prosecute criminal cases around the country. You seem to be advocating the position that if a lawyer represents a Gitmo detainee, he or she should be barred from subsequently working on tax evasion cases in Seattle or prosecuting a Sherman Act violation in Cleveland.   This question has come up many times in legal practice before and has been answered for a long, long time. Under Rule 1.06 of the ABA's Model Code, which has been adopted by most states, www.texasbar.com/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm a lawyer who has represented a client may not in subsequent employment appear in a case in which the client is being sued over the same facts that were at issue in the first case. However, the lawyer can handle an entirely different matter against the first client.   For example, if I represent you in a divorce case today, ethically there is nothing to stop me from representing some one down the road who is bring suit against you in a traffic accident case, unless somehow the traffic accident case is connected to the divorce. If you think that there is a conflict, you can ask your new lawyer to bring a motion to have me disqualified from the subsequent case. To get me disqualified, you would have to show the court the connection between the two cases.   Lawyers go from representing criminal defendants to becoming government lawyers all the time. If we adopt your position, it would be difficult to get lawyers to represent defendants, since your position would forever bar them from becoming government lawyers.

[Karina]

Should those who fulfilled their constitutional responsibility to see that all accused have representation be applauded? That's how I see it. I don't think representing the accused means one agrees with whom one represents but that one is doing the job the government and constitution mandate be done.   danielpauldavis 46 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Dunleah]

Why shouldn't they be? They aren't criminals. Those detainees who were tried in criminal courts needed defense attorneys just like any other defendant in a court of law. That's how the Justice system works and they are doing their parts.

[Lee]

ElBanditoRoso said: 2 Apparently in the right wing conservative world, facts don't matter - who you have worked for professionally does. Lawyers defend people. Sometimes the people being defended are odious and unpleasant. The lawyers are there to allow constitutional rights - namely the right to a fair trial - to be exercised.I cannot imagine a world where a lawyer, doing his lawful job, is blacklisted because of who has helped professionally. If that were the case, no one would want to defend unpopular defendants. That means that there is no justice.Yes, of course the USDOJ should hire lawyers who have defended Gauntanamo people. They have acted in the highest traditions of our American system of justice. Frankly, to suggest otherwise is to be unAmerican. 46 months ago

[amoz]

Legal ethics answered this question long, long ago.d The DOJ is a huge operation.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice  It has many divisions that deal with everything from Antitrust, Civil Rights, Environmental Law and Taxation to mention a few. Their personnel also prosecute criminal cases around the country. You seem to be advocating the position that if a lawyer represents a Gitmo detainee, he or she should be barred from subsequently working on tax evasion cases in Seattle or prosecuting a Sherman Act violation in Cleveland.   This question has come up many times in legal practice before and has been answered for a long, long time. Under Rule 1.06 of the ABA's Model Code, which has been adopted by most states, www.texasbar.com/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm a lawyer who has represented a client may not in subsequent employment appear in a case in which the client is being sued over the same facts that were at issue in the first case. However, the lawyer can handle an entirely different matter against the first client.   For example, if I represent you in a divorce case today, ethically there is nothing to stop me from representing some one down the road who is bring suit against you in a traffic accident case, unless somehow the traffic accident case is connected to the divorce. If you think that there is a conflict, you can ask your new lawyer to bring a motion to have me disqualified from the subsequent case. To get me disqualified, you would have to show the court the connection between the two cases.   Lawyers go from representing criminal defendants to becoming government lawyers all the time. If we adopt your position, it would be difficult to get lawyers to represent defendants, since your position would forever bar them from becoming government lawyers. Sources: cited above and life as a lawyer   Snow_Leopard's Recommendations Ethics for the Legal Professional(7th Edition) Amazon List Price: $93.33 Used from: $59.50 Average Customer Rating: 3.5 out of 5(based on 6 reviews) Problems in Legal Ethics(American Casebook Series) Amazon List Price: $125.00 Used from: $14.41 Average Customer Rating: 3.5 out of 5(based on 2 reviews) Legal Ethics: Rules, Statutes, and Comparisons Used from: $10.14 Legal Ethics Amazon List Price: $86.95 Used from: $49.37 Average Customer Rating: 5.0 out of 5(based on 2 reviews) Legal Ethics: Text and Materials(Law in Context) Amazon List Price: $45.00 Used from: $28.97 Snow_Leopard 46 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.