- Joined
- Jan 22, 2023
I'm pretty sure #3 is a bad idea unless your client is demonstrably incompetent, but #2 is obviously the best option for any lawyer Cackets gets. #1 seems kind of awkward if your client is insisting on you filing things that are obviously awful and will make you look like a moron in court. The Barneswalker has chosen #1, possibly to gain clout with Barnes's club and possibly because he may be a shit lawyer anyway. #3 can have implications outside that specific court case that are very much not in the client's interest, and is a recipe for a malpractice lawsuit.
- file whatever the fuck the client asks you to file, no matter how dogshit, because the client believes its in their best interest, and you just carry out their wishes.
- refuse to file whatever the fuck your retard client asks you to file and risk getting fired/replaced in order to save yourself the embarrassment of filing dogshit
- file whatever the fuck you want because you think it is in the best interest of your client, regardless of what they think.
To an extent, but I am not going to look like a tool for your ego. I still have to work in the court after you're long gone and my obligations to the Professional Rules are paramount.
My understanding of this is that the client has a surprisingly large amount of control over strategic decisions, but once you get to a level of tactics (especially the content of motions), it's all up to the lawyer. If your client comes in and says "I want you to try Franks to get this dismissed" and your client is a lawyer and you have explained all the options and insisted that this is a stupid course of action, it's not clear to me that you can do anything but file the most professional Franks motion you can muster (however unlikely it is to win) or fire your client.That's not a good idea, IMO. While the client doesn't have control over the tactical decisions, it's only going to cause issues for you woth the court or bar if you ignore your client.
I suppose you could argue that this still means "I want the warrant tossed" despite your client's request specifically for a Franks motion and that interpretation would give you a bit more latitude. Or you could try to argue that it means "I want the evidence from the search tossed" and you get even more latitude. Of course, you might have to have an awkward conversation when your motion doesn't cite Franks.