The Hippocratic Oath, as taken by physicians, in part states that they will do no harm; will abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous; will abstain from every voluntary act of corruption and will continue to keep this Oath unviolated with the blessing of the Almighty and respect of my peers and society, but should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot.
The Hypocritic Oath, as taken by attorneys in NC, in part states that they do solemnly and sincerely swear to 'be faithful and bear the true allegiance to the State powers and authorities which are or may be established for the government thereof, and that they will endeavor to support, maintain and defend said State to the best of their ability. Further, they swear to 'truly and honestly demean myself' in the practice of an attorney.
Rules, Laws, Standards, and Oaths to keep.. what are these based on? Morality? Whose exactly? If one takes an Oath to keep faithful and not to violate Rules, Laws, and Standards that are ‘discretionary’, or ''are considered moreat a guideline’, then why bother to swear 'so help me God' or by the 'Almighty' at all?
Matthew 5:34.37 : But I say this to you, do not swear at all, either by heaven, or by earth; All you need say is Yes if you mean Yes, No if you mean No; anything else more than this comes from the Evil One
HISTORY- At the time of the American Revolution most lawyers were Royalists and openly sympathetic to England. State Constitutions, and the Federal, were drafted in part by lawyers as self-interested attempts to protect interest group prerogatives. These drafted laws were rightfully seen by those subject to them (slaves, peons, injured workers) as unjust. (Even today the U.S. CONSTITUTION still holds a form of slavery as legal).
In the year of 1878 when the American Bar Association (ABA) was first organized, no attention to the devising of a uniform set of standards to govern the conduct of lawyers was given. Years later in 1908 the ABA finally produced a common statement of professional norms presumably to reflect the values of lawyers. The 'CANONS' were not meant originally to serve as a blueprint of regulatory enforcement. They were however an avowal of professional solidarity- an elitist assertion of their legitimacy to professional status.
Lawyer ‘Self-regulation’ and ‘Peer Review’ is almost unheard of. When groups such as the ABA mystify themselves by asserting that any outsider cannot comprehend them, and much less assign action and behavior to any particular rule, they have effectively shielded themselves from external control and scrutiny.
‘Self-regulation’ only invites favoritism and cronyism. This is most evident in the selected screening process controlled by these organizations to choose judges from their ranks. This proclivity for a self-regulated (self-protective) position lends to a purely self-interested mindset often conflicting with others interests, such as their clients or the public at large.
'Peer Review' only means I am my brother’s keeper, not you, and I love my brother enough to protect the group’s interests from you. This is most evident in the limitation in ability to sue for damages or even file claims of legal malpractice. Measuring violations is difficult, but studies show that violations happen often and are repeated by those who receive no disciplinary action. This is viewed by the public as endorsed by the courts and other attorneys. Grounds for discipline are plain, but courts disregard as if a matter of form, or policy.
The 1969 Code, in DR 1-103 (A), and the 1983 Model Rules, in Rule 8.3 (a), state that there is an obligation to report other lawyers’ violations of rules. Perhaps no other rule is ignored more than this one. Only 10-15% of the complaints received by disciplinary agencies are peer-review related.
Prosecutors, as one may perceive as other, are still lawyers who took the same Oath as defense attorneys and judges, who are also members of the Bar Association, and so are considered peers. Yet they represent the government and have an additional set of ethical duties.
Violations of ethical rules are so prevalent that courts have systematically implemented measures to rectify them, and yet have implemented others so that those same prosecutors have immunity and cannot be held accountable by the public.
So then who or what will hold them accountable? Certainly not their peers.
Judges? When Constitutional Rights given are violated a claimant or defendant tries to convince judicial representatives of that but exactly who are they?
They are the ones who day-in and day-out interact with their fellow members of the Bar. In my case, a judge presiding over a crucial hearing was quoted as saying it was one of the greatest honors of his life to swear in the local prosecutor who also happened to be a lifelong childhood friend. It wasn't surprising at all when that same judge summarily dismissed all of my claims (without even the opportunity to present argument for those) when proof of a past recantation by the same sole 'eyewitness' in my case claimed that the sheriff's deputy and prosecutor’s office coerced false statements about me.
This same judge later also dismissed my motion to remove appellate counsel for a multitude of documented violations of their own sworn ethical codes. Saying to me that they were fine attorneys and would not be removed. That I was indigent and so have no say in who my representatives are.
This despite that General Statutes of N.C. Article 36 Entitlement of Indigent Persons Generally §7A-450 (b): "Whenever a person under the standards and procedures set out in this Subchapter, is determined to be an indigent person entitled to counsel, it is the responsibility of the State to provide him with counsel and the other necessary expenses of representation. The professional relationship of counsel so provided to the indigent person he represents is the same as if counsel had been privately retained by the indigent person.
That said, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.16: Declining Or Terminating Representation (d) Discharge: [4] A Client has a right to discharge a lawyer at any time, with or without cause, subject to liability for payment for the lawyers services. Where future dispute about the withdrawal may be anticipated, it may be advisable to prepare a written statement reciting the circumstances.
In the book Modern Legal Ethics by Charles W. Wolfram, it states: It is now uniformly recognized that the client-lawyer contract is terminable at will by the client. For good reasons, or the worst reasons, a client may fire the lawyer. pg. 545 §9.5.2
Preamble (in part): to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct: A Lawyers Responsibilities
"As negotiator, a lawyer seeks a result advantageous to the client but consistent with requirements honest dealings with others"
"While it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process"
"These principles include the lawyer's obligation zealously to protect and pursue a client's legitimate interests, within the bounds of the law, while maintaining a professional, courteous and civil attitude towards all persons involved in the legal system"
"The legal profession’s relative autonomy carries with it special responsibilities of self-government. The profession has a responsibility to assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar. Every lawyer is responsible for observance of the Rules of Professional Conduct. A lawyer should also aid in securing their observance by other lawyers. Neglect of these responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and the public interest which it serves".
"Violation of a Rule should not itself give rise to a cause of action against a lawyer nor should it create any presumption in such a case that a legal duty has been breached. In addition, violation of a Rule does not necessarily warrant any other non-disciplinary remedy, such as disqualification of a lawyer in pending litigation. The Rules are designed to provide guidance to lawyers and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies. They are not designed to be a basis for civil liability. Furthermore, the purpose of the Rules can be subverted when they are invoked by opposing parties as procedural weapons. The fact that a Rule is just basis for a lawyer's self-assessment, or for sanctioning a lawyer under the administration of a disciplinary authority, does not imply that an antagonist in a collateral proceeding or transaction has standing to seek enforcement of the Rule".
A judge is 'seen' or 'thought of' as the one who decides the winner of a debate (argument). When in actuality (by law) they are predisposed to side with (give the benefit of the doubt to) the prosecutor or 'State'. In fact, depending on if s/he is a new judge or close to retirement, it’s an election year, or one political party or the other hold the majority, decisions based on law can be, and are, interpreted one way or another depending solely on the leanings of the decider. Laws are just rules that only apply to the accused and to the rest are "discretionary".
Recently an Arizona judge stated that Law Enforcement was indeed not a profession as it was not regulated. Arizona then executed the guy whose lawyers argued otherwise. Law Enforcement officers have Rules and Codes of Conduct for themselves, not unlike, and yet not the same, as members of the Bar do, who also have 'peer review'. So isn't that judge's statement also reflective of the Bar in that they also are not a profession, which in turn means they are unprofessional..?
Judges also give the police the benefit of the doubt, but then the police are the enforcers of the law that the judges decide, and by design the very ones who keep the 'justice system' flush with money, and the 'justices' in control.
Four main ideals govern legal thought: an unshakable belief in American Law as the morally superior of all others; the stubborn adherence to the past; an obsession for more rules and the power implied with them; and the unquestionable deference to authority figures.
Servile subjects, i.e. taxpayers/laborers, are the elements required for a hierarchical authoritarian system of government. Servility constrains legal discussion outside of the courts and country clubs, and societies that require membership. Most importantly it is anti-thought.
Instruction in law schools remains skeptical of theory, including even a general philosophy of law. By failing to join theory with practice, and social agenda with advocacy, law schools have settled for faculty who research and instruct but too often never practice their own teachings, and so therefore are left presiding over what is in essence no more than an outmoded trade school.
With an average graduation rate of 59%, and that when most scrape by after multiple Bar exams, the admission of these students of law only lowers standards, stagnates the running of the courts, and increases error rates.
The US Supreme Court itself, formed of the highest ranking judges (Justices) in the country, has in the past century alone left laws in place requiring ethnic internment camps, the execution of minors and the mentally handicapped, suppression of free speech, segregation of races, sexual discrimination, the involuntary sterilization of women, slavery, immunization of police misconduct and brutality, and the diversion of public lawsuits into private fora.
Most areas of law are by design so large as to be infinitely confusing, even to those who practice it. By allowing and granting its own officials and enforcers and practitioner's special dispensation to declare ‘discretionary’ rules deemed too complex to follow, the 'law' is only applicable to who?
Given the very nature of this stance taken, is it any wonder that Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC) is the norm rather than the exception, and ultimately a reflection of judicial failure (Peer Review).
"The right of counsel guaranteed by the Constitution contemplates the services of an attorney devoted solely to the interests of his client. Undivided allegiance and faithful devoted service to a client are prized traditions of the American lawyer. It is this kind of service for which the Sixth Amendment makes provision". Justice Black.
Unfortunately (for the client) the courts unmistakably adopt a completely different concept of the role of defense attorneys - s/he need do only what the State requires, not what is most important to their client in pursuit of justice. In fact, being appointed an ineffective attorney in the course of being declared indigent, is just another one of the many indignities placed upon a person who has had the misfortune of being, all too often falsely, accused of a crime.
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees an appellant at the criminal level, pursuing a first appeal as of Right, minimum safeguards to make an attempt at the appearance of "adequate and effective", counsel. The question then is if the appellate-level Right to counsel comprehends what ‘adequate’ means, much less what defines ‘effective’.
The Strickland standard is applied when a lawyer’s effectiveness is questioned, and the multi-pronged standard of review is nigh-on impossible to argue, again by design. IAC will be found when "counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result". An example being: if an issue which was not raised may have resulted in a reversal of the conviction, or an order for a new trial, the failure would be prejudicial.
Would you, considering yourself or a loved one as a defendant in a murder trial, think it prejudicial that the jury never heard evidence of your multiple alibi witnesses? Or of the extensively documented mental health history of the sole 'eyewitness' accusing you of murder? In and of which there is a long history of manipulative vindictive impulsive lying, some of which was already revealed in a different 'unrelated' trial record in the form of a signed and testified-to recantation of false statements that were coerced by the very same police and prosecutor in your trial? Is it prejudicial that your attorneys never viewed or investigated (as is there sworn duty) the crime scene or any of the 'evidence' gathered that may have connected a third party?
Thus far the courts in my appeal process have not, but then it’s not someone they love or are associated with being charged and convicted and sentenced to DEATH now is it..?
Double standards, Hypocrisy, Catch 22s, Harmless Errors, Broken Oaths, Cover Ups, Favoritism, Prejudices, Spite, Greed, Fellowship, Membership...
...and an OATH to adhere their dedication to..