Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are you saying it's acceptable if they weren't?
|
Actually, yes.
It's not a violation of a specific ethical duty.
It's not a government official trying to prevent criminal defendants from getting competent representation.
It's not a government official making the false (and, I would argue, knowingly false) suggestion that the law firms involved are being paid by questionable sources (i.e., on the al Qaeda payroll), when in fact they are usually working for free.
I wouldn't be particularly offended if a private company made the decision, on its own, to stop doing business with a law firm that represented prisoners at Guantanamo. (Though, personally, I would like to know the name of that company and I would consider not doing business with someone who tries to interfere with another person's representation.) Clients are entitled to make that choice. But I am offended by a government lawyer, particularly one in a prosecutorial role, advocating for this.
In contrast -- and more similar to the situation you identified (which I don't agree with, btw; while I did not support the position of the plaintiffs in that case I think it is a complex issue and one that merits court attention) -- if a group of law firms were bringing a civil case on behalf of al Qaeda or Hamas to, say, challenge the freezing of bank assets, I would have no problem at all with a call to boycott those firms. In fact, I would fully agree with it.
So, yes: a prosecutor trying to separate defendants from lawyers is a particularly bad thing.
