Are lawyers generally scared of judges?

Okorie Okorocha

Question 1:

For example, if a judge expects a lawyer to take a plea and makes that known without saying a word would it ethical for the lawyer to go along even if he feels differently or if his client feels differently?

Answer to Question 1:

The attorney should provide the client with a legal opinion and any information that may help the client in making a decision and then let the client decide.

Question 2:

I have heard and read about lawyers advising their clients that "if you take this to trial you will make the judge very angry and he'll punish twice as hard". Is that even ethical?

Answer to Question 2:

We need a little more information. But generally, the reason people take a plea agreement is generally because they are getting something better than they think they will get as a result of the trial. So in many cases, it is likely that going to trial may have a higher chance of a harsher sentence, so it may make sense for an attorney to give that advice.

Lawrence Neil Rogak

A good attorney "respects" judges, but doesn't fear them. No lawyer should advise his client to make any plea or take any position just because of what the judge "expects," unless that expectation is based on a prior discussion with the judge in which the case was discussed and the lawyer represented to the judge that his client would be making a certain plea at the next court appearance.

There are all kinds of judges, and some of them can be intimidating. But that should play little or no role in the decisions that an attorney makes.

As far as advising a client to enter a plea (of guilty, I am assuming) to avoid making the judge "angry" and getting "punish twice as hard," a recommendation like that might make sense in a situation where the evidence is overwhelming, the client has prior convictions, the potential sentence if convicted is severe, and the judge (and prosecutor) have agreed to accept a plea of guilty to a lesser charge with a much lighter sentence.

However, to answer the question in your first sentence, the client has the last word in what his plea will be, and a lawyer cannot ethically present a plea that his client does not consent to. If the lawyer feels that he or she cannot ethically go along with the client's wishes, the lawyer is supposed to ask to be discharged and let the client get a new lawyer.

Jason Adam Dickstein

My experience is in civil, rather than criminal litigation, and your question really seems to come from a criminal law point-of-view. Nonetheless, I find ti fairly common for judges to "signal" their intent once they have made up their mind about something. Sometimes lawyer keep piling on the information even though there really is enough information in the record to allow a reasonable judge to make up his or her mind. In one of my cases, the plaintiff obtained an ex-parte (meaning that they obtained it without our side being heard) temporary injunction preventing my client from doing business. Before we ever got to the merits of the matter, we had a very early motions hearing over whether the temporary injunction should continue. By the end of that motions hearing, the judge made it clear that she felt that the plaintiff had mislead her in the application for the ex-parte temporary injunction. That case was quickly settled favorably to my client, because it was clear that the plaintiff had prejudiced the judge against their case by over-reaching in the application for the ex-parte temporary injunction.

I am sure that the judge would have been fair if the case went forward, but her reaction to the plaintiff also sent a signal to the plaintiff that their case was not strong and that they would just be wasting their money and the court's resources in going forward. By sending that signal early, the case could be settled before a lot of resources were wasted.

Dieter

An attorney should at all times be cognizant of ramifications which may occur to the client. There are in fact judges who will make it more difficult for the client if you take a case to trial. It is the lawyers responsibility to advise the client of the consequences are allow the client to make a decision.

Sharon Elizabeth Chirichillo

The ethical oblication is ALWAYS for the client. IF the client does not want to take the plea that is the client's right and the attorney is ethically bound to abide by the client's wishes. In addition an attorney must provide legal advise on the merits of the state's case against the accused and all possible options including trial. Know your attorney before you decide to make any decisions, you need to know your rights are protected. Ask that attorney the exact question you asked us and see how they answer. Trust what your gut says.

birdie

Sharon Elizabeth, I'm the original poster. I totally agree with you that 'the ethical oblication is ALWAYS for the client.' We all know the legal system is bogged down but a silent intimidation from the judge to force a lawyer to take a plea should not be part of the justice solution; or worse yet a nod and a wink sort of agreement between lawyer, judge and prosecutor to push cases through by skipping trials is very "un-justicelike".

michelle

Birdie, I totally agree with you and after recent experience with the legal system, I have developed a total distrust. Guilty persons don't mind taking a plea but the innocent get bullied by the judge, prosecutor and thier own attorney in to taking a plea unless they have deep pockets. The system has every thing to do with win/loss records and money and very little to do with finding the truth and real justice. Example, where is the financial incentive for an defence attorney to fight hard to get a case without merit simply dropped? He gets paid more to pursue it to trial.

Keith Samuel Hasson

Good lawyers are generally NOT scared of judges. The duty of the lawyer is to zealously represent his client's best interests, regardless of what the judge thinks. Judges should not punish defendants in criminal cases for exercising their constitutional right to a jury trial. However, it should be noted that after a trial, a criminal defendant may not receive the benefit of a plea bargain offered prior to trial. Whether you agree with the reasoning or not, the rationale for this is that a defendant who pleads guilty and accepts responsibility deserves a lighter sentence.