Generally, the attorney-client privilege applies when:
Lawyers may not reveal oral or written communications with clients that clients reasonably expect to remain private. A lawyer who has received a client’s confidences cannot repeat them to anyone outside the legal team without the client’s consent. In that sense, the privilege is the client’s, not the lawyer’s—the client can decide to forfeit (or waive) the privilege, but the lawyer cannot.
The privilege generally stays in effect even after the attorney-client relationship ends, and even after the client dies. In other words, the lawyer can never divulge the client’s secrets without the client’s permission, unless some kind of exception (see below) applies. (United States v. White, 970 F.2d 328 (7th Cir. 1992); Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998).)
The attorney-client privilege is, strictly speaking, a rule of evidence. It prevents lawyers from testifying about, and from being forced to testify about, their clients’ statements. Independent of that privilege, lawyers also owe their clients a duty of confidentiality. The duty of confidentiality prevents lawyers from even informally discussing information related to their clients’ cases with others. They must ordinarily keep private almost all information related to representation of the client, even if that information didn’t come from the client.
Lawyer-client communications are covered by the attorney-client privilege only if the circumstances lend themselves to confidentiality. For example, clients who speak to their lawyers about pending lawsuits in private, with no one else present, can reasonably expect secrecy. If someone were to secretly record the conversation, that recording would probably be inadmissible in court.
But a client who speaks to a lawyer in public wouldn’t be able to prevent someone who overheard the conversation from testifying about it. Similarly, a client can forfeit the attorney-client privilege by repeating a conversation with an attorney to someone else, or by having a third person present during a conversation with the lawyer. No matter who hears or learns about a communication, however, the lawyer typically remains obligated not to repeat it.
Preliminary communications between a potential client and a lawyer are normally subject to the attorney-client privilege. That means that lawyers can’t disclose what potential clients reveal in confidence even if the lawyers never end up representing them. (In re Auclair, 961 F.2d 65 (5th Cir. 1992).) To be sure, though, you should confirm with a lawyer you haven't hired that the privilege applies before you reveal anything you want to keep secret.
Discussions of previous acts are generally covered by the attorney-client privilege. If, for example, a client tells his lawyer that he robbed a bank or lied about assets during a divorce, the lawyer probably can’t disclose the information.
But if a client initiates a communication with a lawyer for the purpose of committing a crime or an act of fraud in the future, the attorney-client privilege typically doesn’t apply. Likewise, most states allow—or require—attorneys to disclose information learned from a client that will prevent death or serious injury. Many have a similar rule where revealing otherwise confidential information would prevent or help recover money lost due to a crime or fraud.
The attorney-client privilege differs somewhat from state to state, and between state and federal court. When speaking to an attorney about a legal matter, make sure to go over the scope of the attorney-client privilege and the duty of confidentiality. The lawyer should be able to explain the specific law that applies to your situation, including relevant legal rules not mentioned in this article.
]]>Because the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client, the client’s intent determines whether the exception applies. Most courts will apply the exception even if the attorney had no knowledge of, and didn’t participate in, the actual crime or fraud.
The crime-fraud exception applies if:
In some states, the crime-fraud exception isn’t limited to crimes and fraud; it also applies where the client’s object is a civil tort. For example, the exception could apply if a landlord sought advice about unlawfully evicting a tenant.
Note that many torts are also crimes—assault and trespassing are but two examples. So, even in a state where the client’s objective must be criminal in order for the crime-fraud exception to apply, something that also happens to be a tort may trigger it.
Whether the crime-fraud exception applies depends on the content and context of the communication. The exception covers communications about a variety of crimes and frauds, including (to name just a few):
Example: Walt meets with criminal defense attorney Saul for legal advice and asks about the penalties for cooking and selling meth. Saul explains the penalties, and also explains that profits from illegal drug sales can lead to money laundering charges. The conversation is privileged because Walt merely sought advice about penalties. But the result would be different if Walt asked Saul for advice on hiding or destroying evidence, or how to launder his profits by funneling them through a legitimate business.
Example: A securities broker who asks her attorney which documents she should shred to avoid being charged with securities violations is asking the attorney to help her commit a criminal fraud. The prosecution, assuming it suspects or has any indication this conversation took place, could call the lawyer to testify about it. If the judge agreed, the lawyer wouldn’t be able to use the attorney-client privilege as a basis to refuse to answer questions about the broker’s document-shredding consultation.
Perhaps the most important consideration about the crime-fraud exception is whether the communication at hand relates to a past wrong, or a present or future one. Communications about past crimes and frauds are almost always privileged, but communications about ongoing or future ones usually aren’t.
Note, however, that many courts distinguish present from future intent, and are more likely to apply the exception where the intent is current. The exception ordinarily doesn’t apply if the client is merely seeking advice about the consequences of some possible future action. Not surprisingly, the line between present intent and possible future intent can be hazy. Ultimately, it may be up to a court to decide whether the client was about to commit a crime, or was merely asking about the consequences of some future action he might or might not take.
If the crime-fraud exception applies, the prosecution can subpoena the attorney and force him to disclose the contents of the communication in question. But, apart from the crime-fraud exception, some situations ethically require lawyers to disclose communications. If lawyers don’t, they risk disciplinary sanctions, and possibly criminal charges. Examples include the following.
Most states allow—or require—attorneys to disclose information learned from a client that will prevent death or serious injury. Many have a similar rule where revealing otherwise confidential information would prevent or remedy financial injury due to a crime or fraud.
(For related reading, see If I tell my psychologist about a crime I committed can I get in trouble?)
State ethics rules specify which communications lawyers must disclose, and they may vary somewhat. But these rules tend to have procedures intended to minimize the amount of information the lawyer discloses. The idea is to allow the reporting of critical information while minimizing the extent to which the lawyer implicates the client.
Although there are many similarities in the attorney-client privilege from state to state, and in state and federal court, there are variations. Evidence rules, statutes, and court decisions shape the privilege, and determine when the crime-fraud exception applies. Although every state recognizes the crime-fraud exception, when and how it operates may vary somewhat.
While there are some rules of thumb, whether the exception applies almost always turns on the particular facts of each case. Clients and potential clients should rely on advice from a lawyer about which communications will be privileged.
]]>Some defense lawyers don’t want to know what the client did and didn’t do, so as to avoid being boxed into a particular version of events. Those who don’t want to know precisely what happened probably have in mind ethical constraints. They cannot ethically (or legally) offer evidence that they know to be false. (ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3.) This means, for example, that they can’t allow their clients to commit perjury—that is, to testify to a version of events they know to be false.
On the other hand, many lawyers want to hear from their clients exactly what happened. They typically encourage their clients to be truthful for the sake of crafting an effective defense. Only that way can the defense attorney know what will—and won’t—work. For example, a lawyer representing a woman charged with killing her boyfriend might want to know everything that happened both during the incident and throughout the course of the relationship. If the client admits to her lawyer that she killed the man, but describes tremendous physical and emotional trauma she previously suffered at his hands, the lawyer may be able to present a convincing defense based on the history of abuse.
A defendant admission of guilt to a defense attorney doesn’t necessarily mean that the case won’t—or shouldn’t—go to trial. For example, a defense attorney might advise a “guilty” client to go to trial because:
There’s nothing stopping an attorney who knows a client to be guilty from arguing that the jury should acquit. The attorney can look for mistakes by law enforcement in investigating the case and poke holes in the prosecution’s theory in order to raise a reasonable doubt. In fact, that’s a criminal defense lawyer’s obligation—to always protect the constitutional rights of the accused so that those who are actually innocent won’t be convicted. Zealous advocacy is also designed to force the government to honor our civil liberties, such as the right of suspects—innocent or guilty—to be free from physical coercion.
The best strategy for someone facing criminal charges is to follow the lead of an experienced, trusted criminal defense lawyer, and no matter, to be truthful with that lawyer. An attorney who has your best interests in mind will advise you regarding the possibilities and your best course of action.
]]>I told my lawyer I’m planning on telling a lie on the stand. What will happen?
Criminal defense attorneys have a duty to zealously represent their clients and guard their confidences. However, they also have a duty to the court not to present evidence that they know is false, fraudulent, or perjured, whether it’s coming from the defendant or a witness whom the lawyer knows intends to lie. A lawyer who knowingly uses or presents perjured testimony risks serious consequences. Under the profession’s code of ethics (the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association), doing so subjects the lawyer to discipline—and quite possibly, disbarment.
Knowing that presenting false testimony violates their duty to the court, few lawyers will allow it. They will do their best to convince their clients not to testify falsely.
Attorneys whose clients stubbornly insist on offering perjured testimony face a difficult dilemma, pulled between their duties to the court and their client. The correct response is to ask the lawyer to be relieved of the case, so that another lawyer can be appointed—without saying why. When such a request is made, a judge may suspect that the reason is the defendant’s intention to perjure himself, but there are many other reasons that would support a defense lawyer’s request to withdraw from a case.
From a practical point of view, appointing a new defense attorney may not be any solution at all. If the client reveals his intentions to the second lawyer, the same problem will present itself. Even if the client remains silent, the second lawyer, like the judge, may figure out what’s going on. For this reason, some judges may deny the substitution request. In that event, the first lawyer might ask to withdraw and ask that the client proceed on his own. In one case, the Supreme Court approved of an attorney’s statement to his client that if he gave perjured testimony, the lawyer would question him, effectively cross-examining his own client and exposing the lies. (Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986).)
Defendants who understand the consequences of telling their lawyers of their plan to testify falsely (or offer witnesses who will lie), draw one obvious conclusion: Don’t reveal your plan. But hiding one’s intention to testify falsely has grave possible consequences: When your testimony is based on a lie, it may be very hard, if not impossible, for your lawyer to defend you against attacks that will come in the form of cross-examination by the prosecutor. And remember—many times, the truth “will out,” even in the most carefully crafted stories. When defendants are exposed as liars on the stand, it never goes well, with the jury or with the judge at sentencing time. Finally, witnesses who perjure themselves face the possibility of a criminal charge of perjury, which is a serious felony.
Read more on the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.
This article reviews the basics of the attorney-client privilege and the ways in which a client might lose their privilege.
Both court-appointed lawyers (such as public defenders) and private defense attorneys are equally bound to maintain client confidences, even potential clients.
Generally speaking, the attorney-client privilege applies when:
The attorney-client privilege belongs to the client. It prevents the lawyer from being forced to testify regarding the client’s communication unless the client gives up the privilege. The lawyer also owes the client a duty of confidentiality to never reveal the client’s secrets to anyone else without their permission.
The attorney-client privilege outlives the relationship and even the parties. It applies after the case is over and the attorney-client relationship ends. Even the client’s death doesn’t end the privilege. Importantly, though, the client must always act in a way that maintains the privacy and secrecy of the communication.
If a client acts in a way that doesn’t protect the secrecy of their communications, they give up the attorney-client privilege.
Suppose you discuss your case with your attorney in a restaurant, loud enough for other diners to overhear the conversation. Can they testify to what you said? Yes. Lawyer-client communications are confidential only if they are made in a context where it would be reasonable to expect that they would remain confidential. (Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967).) A defendant who talks to a lawyer in such a loud voice that others overhear what is said has no reasonable expectation of privacy and thus waives (gives up) the privilege. Similarly, people who talk about their cases on cell phones in public places risk losing confidentiality.
Jailhouse conversations between defendants and their attorneys are considered confidential, as long as the discussion takes place in a private area of the jail and the attorney and defendant do not speak so loudly that jailers or other inmates can overhear what is said.
But what about phone conversations, either in person (speaking on phones, separated by a glass partition) or using a payphone? Defendants must be very careful not to allow jailers or even other prisoners to overhear what they say on the telephone. These people sometimes eavesdrop, in person or on the telephone, and then claim that they were able to overhear incriminating information because the defendant spoke in a loud voice. (Inmates often try to curry favor with prosecutors through such tactics.) If a judge believes them, the privilege is lost and a jailer or other prisoner can testify to a defendant's remarks.
Sometimes, jailers warn a prisoner that phone calls are or may be monitored. That warning alone may mean that phone conversations between prisoners and their lawyers may not be privileged. If a jailer monitors a phone call and overhears a prisoner making a damaging admission to the prisoner's lawyer, the jailer can probably testify to the defendant's statement in court. (For more, see Can a jail record my telephone conversation with my lawyer?)
For perfectly understandable reasons, defendants sometimes want their parents, spouses, or friends to be present when they consult with their lawyers. Does that mean that the conversation won't be considered confidential?
Quite possibly. Defendants who bring strangers (people who are not part of the attorney-client relationship) into a meeting risk losing the right to claim that the meeting was confidential. This means that the D.A. might be able to ask the stranger or even the defendant about what was said during the meeting. However, the lawyer can maintain the privilege by convincing a judge that it was necessary to include the stranger in the conversation. For example, if the third party can shed light on the case or otherwise help the lawyer develop a strategy, that person's presence would not destroy the confidentiality of the conversation.
Blabbermouth defendants waive (give up) the confidentiality of lawyer-client communications when they disclose those statements to someone else (other than a spouse, because a separate privilege exists for spousal communications; most states also recognize a priest-penitent privilege). Defendants have no reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations they reveal to others.
If you want to know what is and isn't confidential given the law in your jurisdiction, make sure to consult a criminal defense lawyer. An experienced lawyer can advise you on the relevant law and guide you through the criminal legal system.
]]>(For all kinds of information about lawyer-client relationships, including confidentiality exceptions, see The Attorney-Client Privilege.)
Each day, countless people with legal problems consult attorneys before deciding if they want to hire them. Many, if not most, criminal defense attorneys offer free consultations for potential clients. Understandably, some defendants wonder whether such consultations—with attorneys who don’t yet and might not ever represent them—are protected.
In general, as long as the prospective client is seeking legal advice or representation and reasonably believes the communication will be confidential, the consultation is privileged. This is so even if the would-be client never pays or hires the attorney. (But if the attorney declines to represent a potential client who nevertheless continues to communicate with the attorney, the result is different.)
The potential-client-confidentiality principle also comes into play when an arrestee consults with a public defender at or from the police station or jail. The conversation is privileged, even though the public defender does not, and may never, represent the arrestee, and even though the public defender doesn’t receive a fee. (But see Can a jail record my telephone conversation with my lawyer?)
Though the law is mostly settled in this area, there are nuances and potential differences from state to state. So, it’s a good idea to start any communication with an attorney who doesn’t represent you by confirming with him or her that your communications will be privileged.
]]>The general rule is that, by allowing a third party to be present for a lawyer-client conversation, the defendant waives the privilege. That generally means that the prosecution can force the third party to reveal the contents of the conversation.
Despite the general rule, there’s an exception in most states: In general, when a third person is present, the attorney-client privilege continues to apply if that third person is there in order to aid the cause. Put more specifically, the third person must be present while fulfilling a role that furthers the defendant’s legal representation. The person might be part of the lawyer’s staff, an outside party with relevant expertise (for instance, an investigator), an interpreter, or even a relative who acts in an advisory role.
When determining whether the attorney-client privilege applies to a conversation involving a third person, courts generally consider:
Courts use words like “essential,” “necessary,” and “highly useful” to describe roles that jibe with the attorney-client privilege. Whether the role fits the bill is a determination that depends on the circumstances.
A defendant might very well expect confidentiality when talking with a lawyer in front of a loved one. And it may be unlikely that the prosecution ever finds out about the meeting or calls the loved one to testify. But, if the prosecution tries to force a friend or loved one to the witness stand, then the role that this person played becomes crucial.
In one Arizona case, for example, the parents of a witness who faced criminal charges sat in on conversations with the lawyer and provided advice and guidance to their son. The parents had sought out and paid for the lawyer. The court said that the presence of the parents, who had “an understandable parental interest and advisory role in their minor’s legal affairs,” didn’t defeat the attorney-client privilege. That meant that a defendant couldn’t question the witness about his conversations with his lawyer. (State v. Sucharew, 205 Ariz. 16 (Ct. App. 2003).)
On the other hand, a Missouri court found that a defendant charged with second degree murder had waived the attorney-client privilege because of a family member’s presence at a client-lawyer meeting. During a prior divorce case, the defendant brought her daughter to a meeting with her family law attorney. Because the daughter wasn’t essential in conveying information to the lawyer and wasn’t reasonably necessary to protect her mother’s interests, her presence at the meeting destroyed the privilege. So, the family law attorney’s testimony about the meeting—given at the murder trial—was admissible. (State v. Shire, 850 S.W.2d 923 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).)
Contrast that situation with a civil case where another daughter was present for lawyer-client conferences. In the civil case, the defendant’s daughter was there for her mother’s conversations with her mother’s attorneys. The mother was elderly and dealing with litigation related to a traumatic event. The daughter chose the law firm for her mother, transported her to the meetings, and put her at ease so she could communicate with her lawyers. The daughter also had relevant information and could aid her mother’s memory. So, the court found that the mother had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, and that her daughter was acting as her agent. In short, the attorney-client privilege applied. (Stroh v. Gen. Motors Corp., 213 A.D.2d 267 (1995).)
The law on the attorney-client privilege is complex and can vary in subtle ways from one state to another. That’s why you should rely on a lawyer for advice—and a full explanation of the law. If you want a third person to be present for a lawyer-client meeting or are concerned about such a person’s presence, talk the issue through with your attorney. And always check in with a lawyer before discussing your case with someone else.
]]>If you're having the same concerns, remember, it's a criminal defense lawyer's job to defend you—guilty or innocent—and to protect your constitutional rights. And they do this every day for guilty and innocent defendants alike.
In the U.S. criminal justice system, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor must prove a defendant's guilt. Defendants do not have to prove their innocence.
Understand that what’s at stake in your case is whether the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime with which you’re charged. That’s a different question than asking whether you did the act that’s involved. For example, if you’re charged with robbery and you did, in fact, wrestle a purse from a woman on the street, you’re still entitled to an acquittal if the victim cannot identify you.
The key is the difference between factual guilt (what the defendant actually did) and legal guilt (what a prosecutor can prove). A good criminal defense lawyer asks not, “Did my client do it?” but rather, “Can the government prove that my client did it?” No matter what the defendant has done, he or she is not legally guilty until a prosecutor offers enough evidence to persuade a judge or jury to convict.
It's your attorney's job to develop a defense strategy, not to judge you. Defense attorneys are ethically bound to zealously represent all clients, those whom they think will be justly found guilty as well as those whom they think are factually innocent. A vigorous defense is necessary to protect the innocent and to ensure that judges and citizens—and not the police—have the ultimate power to decide who is guilty of a crime.
In truth, the defense lawyer almost never really knows whether the defendant is guilty of a charged crime. Just because the defendant says he did it doesn’t make it so. The defendant may be lying to take the rap for someone he wants to protect. Or the defendant might be guilty but of a different and lesser crime than the one being prosecuted by the district attorney. A defendant may have done the act in question but have a valid defense that would exonerate him. For these reasons, among others, defense lawyers often do not ask their clients if they committed the crime. Instead, the lawyer uses the facts to put on the best defense possible and leaves the question of guilt to the judge or jury.
What defense attorneys cannot do is lie to the judge or jury. For instance, a lawyer cannot specifically state that the defendant did not do something the lawyer knows the defendant did do. The lawyer also can't admit guilt against the client's wishes. Instead, the defense lawyer will focus their trial tactics and arguments on the government’s failure to prove all the elements of the crime.
Example: Sam is charged with shoplifting. Sam admits to his lawyer that he took a watch, as charged. Sam’s lawyer realizes that the store’s hidden camera videotape is fuzzy and practically useless as prosecution evidence. In addition, Sam’s lawyer learns that the store’s security guard was at the end of a long overtime shift and had been drinking alcohol. Sam’s lawyer can use these facts in an argument for Sam’s acquittal. Before trial, Sam’s lawyer can argue to the prosecutor that the case is too weak to prosecute. At trial, Sam’s lawyer can argue to a judge or jury to acquit Sam. No matter what Sam has done, Sam is not legally guilty unless the prosecutor can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But Sam’s lawyer cannot ethically state in his argument that Sam “didn’t do it,” only that the prosecutor didn’t prove that Sam did do it. While the line between ethical and unethical behavior may seem like—and indeed, is—a fine one, it is a line that criminal defense lawyers walk every day on the job.
If you're suspected of or charged with a crime, contact a criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. Even if you plan to speak with the police, you might want to consult with an attorney first. Your attorney can guide you through the criminal justice process and help you understand your rights.
]]>My lawyer isn't keeping me in the loop on what's going on with my criminal case. I'm getting nervous because I don't know if things are going well or if I might end up in jail. Is there anything in the law that I can use to make sure I'm kept informed on the details of my charge and my case?
Defendants should insist that their lawyers adhere to their ethical obligation to inform them about the progress of their cases. As defined by ethical rules, a lawyer’s duty to keep clients informed has two primary components:
The duty to keep clients informed rests on attorneys, not clients. But on the theory that if the attorney screws up it’s the client who usually suffers, here are a couple of steps that defendants can take to try to secure effective communication with their lawyers:
by: Sara J. Berman
The Sixth Amendment provides that all criminal defendants have the right to assistance of counsel. And assistance means just that—the lawyer job's is to assist the defendant. While lawyers typically manage strategic decisions in a case (such as when to file a motion or make an objection at trial), certain decisions are reserved for the defendant even when they go against the advice of counsel.
Decisions that are up to the defendant include whether to:
(McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. ____ (2018).)
Defendants are in charge of fundamental decisions but that doesn't mean they should obstinately refuse their attorneys' advice. Defendants should ask questions to make sure that they understand the advice and why the lawyers think it's in their best interests before making a decision.
Given that most criminal cases end by plea bargaining, a key decision will often be whether to offer or accept a plea deal. Defense attorneys are ethically required to communicate all plea negotiations, including:
The defense attorney must communicate the offer or response, regardless of whether the attorney believes the prosecutor's offer is unacceptable or the defendant's offer won't be accepted.
Before making this important decision, a defendant is entitled to know what alternatives are reasonably available and, as far as can be predicted, the likely consequences of each. For example, assume that the defendant is charged with assault with a deadly weapon. The defense attorney tells the defendant, "The prosecutor is willing to accept a guilty plea to simple assault and recommend a sentence of six months in county jail and a fine of $500. The decision is yours—what do you want to do?"
The defendant and the attorney should readily identify at least three possible options:
And then, the defendant and attorney should discuss the likely consequences of each option. For example, the defendant might want to know:
One reason so many cases get resolved by plea bargain is that a deal provides (more) certainty for the defendant. If the prosecutor and defense make a deal and the judge agrees to it, the defendant will have a good idea of the outcome. With a trial, there’s a much bigger risk of a tougher sentence. Uncertainty can weigh heavily on a criminal defendant.
Plea deals are also usually cheaper for defendants—not only in lawyer fees but also because a defendant might be able to get back to work more quickly. This factor can be especially important to the defendant sitting in jail awaiting trial.
A trial, on the other hand, might be the only way to get justice for the innocent defendant. Even for the not-so-innocent defendant, the odds of going to trial can be advantageous. The prosecutor must prove every element of the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the case goes to a jury, the defense needs to only convince one juror (out of 12) that the prosecutor didn’t meet this high burden to get an acquittal.
Just like the defendants weigh their options, so do prosecutors. Prosecutors typically have more resources available to them, but they are still aware of the costs, time, and difficulties of going to trial. Prosecutors must also abide by professional conduct rules. If a prosecutor doesn’t believe the evidence would support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor shouldn’t go to trial or accept a guilty plea.
Prosecutors need to evaluate the case as a whole, including: the strength of the evidence, the harm caused by the defendant, the impact on the public and victim, whether the punishment will fit the crime, and whether prosecution is a good use of public resources, among other considerations.
Defendants should not count on having perfect information about the likely consequences of each option. For instance, a defense attorney may have to respond to the second question above by saying, "It's really hard to predict what sentence you'll receive if you're convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. The judge to whom we've been assigned is very unpredictable, and a lot will depend on the recommendation in the probation report that will be prepared after you enter your plea."
Nevertheless, the attorney should provide as much information as possible on the likely consequences of all available options, so the defendant can make the best decision under the circumstances. Attorneys have a professional obligation to offer candid advice—their best professional judgment, not simply what defendants want to hear.
Ultimately, it's the defendant who gets to make the final decision, even if it conflicts with their attorney's advice. Occasionally, lawyers and defendants have such strongly opposing views that the lawyer cannot effectively carry out the defendant's desired strategy. In such a situation, the attorney may seek to withdraw as the defendant's counsel, or the defendant may seek to have the attorney replaced. Whether this will be permitted in either case depends on whether the prosecutor will be prejudiced or the proceedings will be unnecessarily delayed or disrupted.
]]>