主题：【翻译】纽约律师职业责任准则--第四章 -- 南方有嘉木
家园 这样清醒的想法 真是难得
现在对自己一个很深的感觉就是积累不够，需要沉下来多看多听多想多做这样清醒的想法真是难得。嘉木我的一个（让你看不起的）建议是不要太执着。什么时候 not have fun any more, 就该放手了。归根结底，还是follow your heart. 说声保重.
家园 汗，这个能不能将就一下 我骂人也称＂您＂
我问个白痴的技术问题，律师保守客户秘密的目的到底是什么？前面有人说律师是客户的代理人，所以要维护客户的利益。但保守客户秘密一定是维护客户利益的程序吗？
家园 先把公认几点意义给马大哥引一下： 1. clients should be encouraged to be completely truthful with their attorneys, so that the attorney's legal advice can be based on all relevant facts;
2. clients will be reluctant to seek an attorney's advice if they fear that their communications will be revealed to others; and
3. by encouraging clients' communications with their attorneys, the privilege promotes voluntary compliance with laws and regulations.
我自己的一点想法是，之所以要赋予被告这样的保护，和对公权力的极端不信任有关系。
家园 我仔细领会了一下文件精神 感觉是鼓励客户向代理人提供尽量多的真实信息，以利于代理人为他争取最大的利益。尤其是法盲客户自己从法律角度不知道某项事实是否对自己有利。所以不能允许律师未经客户授权利用或泄露对客户不利的信息。
我太迟钝了。
家园 这里的有一个区别应该注意 在这个案子里，客户没有告诉律师他是有罪的，而是律师自己发现的。也就是说是这个客户先违反了这个信任，而律师是对客户的欺骗作反应。因为Conley的欺骗，这个律师失去了不接这个案子选择，而不得不采取极端做法。所以他的做法才会有争论。而现在的律师法则中对这一点好像也有规定。
家园 渔樵兄这里提及两个问题 1.事实问题：
本案中，虽然Conley没有自承有罪，但律师William的调查发现在多大程度上和Conley的陈述有关？----没有看到William的报告，很难确知。
而就被告自述和律师调查之间的区别而言，我赞成D-Cady Herrick的观点，即：
“在我看来这种区别是不可能的。律师经调查发现的事实通常都是基于其客户所告知的信息。如果不是因为律师和客户之间的关系，以及客户的告知，律师根本就不会进行调查（嘉木：或者说律师根本就得不到线索或机会去推进调查）。至少就“沉默之印”这个问题来看，我没看到任何不同。”
这和刑事诉讼法上的“毒树之果”的原则有点像，就是证据的最初来源是不法的，然后这个证据不能被采用。律师调查得来的结果如果最初是来自于客户提供的线索，那么这个结果也应受保密的约束，除非信息来源和客户的陈述完全无关。
2. 法律问题：
客户是否有权对律师隐瞒真相，甚至撒谎？----我认为客户是没有义务告诉律师真相的，客户有权得到最好的辩护，客户有权无后顾之忧地将自己的命运托付给辩护人，这些是他们的权利，他们可以选择如何行使。律师有义务维护客户对他们的信赖，客户没有义务去给与这种信赖。
在律师得知客户撒谎（注意：不是沉默。客户如果就某事实不发表意见，不构成撒谎，他有权沉默）的情形下，律师首先要试图说服客户不要做伪证。如果客户已经对法庭做伪证，或构成欺诈，律师要帮助消除影响。如果无法做到，律师有权，甚至在某些情形下必须拒绝代理----主贴引用的纽约州律师职业道德规则D2-110赋予律师withdrawal的权利。
给渔樵兄引一段说明（我晚上再帮忙翻出来）：
Issue #1
One of your clients has stated repeatedly, "Just put me on the stand and I'll lie my way to an acquittal." Let's assume that you are 100% certain that your client intends to follow through with his promise to lie on the stand if called to testify. What must you do?
Answer to Issue #1
If a lawyer is certain that his client intends to commit perjury, the lawyer must first attempt to persuade the client to testify truthfully. If the client still intends to lie, the lawyer must threaten to reveal the client's intent to commit perjury to the judge. If the threat of disclosure does not alter the client's plan, then the lawyer must do whatever is necessary to prevent the commission of perjury by his client, including, but not limited to, disclosing his client's intent to lie to the judge.
Issue #2
A client that you're defending was arrested and booked under the name, "Benjamin Franklin." Throughout your representation, you hear several of his friends and relatives call him, "Sean." One day, you ask your client why people frequently refer to him as "Sean" as opposed to "Benjamin." Your client candidly reveals to you that "Benjamin" is not his real name. He explains that he provided the arresting officer a fake name in an attempt to conceal the fact that he had an arrest record dating back to the "Disco Crisis." As his attorney, must you inform the court? Additionally, are you ethically obligated to reveal to the court your client's true identity?
Answer to Issue #2
A criminal defense attorney, who learns that his client, a defendant in a criminal proceeding, is using an alias, may not inform the court of same. The reasons why the attorney shall not reveal his client's fake name to the court includes: The attorney-client privilege, the client's constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, and the client's constitutionally guaranteed right to effective assistance of counsel.
However, an attorney must take action when their client is involved in an activity that would constitute commission of a crime or a fraud on the court. For example, if the client desired to testify at trial and insisted upon using his false name, then the attorney must advise the client that the attorney cannot aid the client in testifying unless the client is willing to divulge that the name under which the client was charged is not his real name. The attorney is obligated to attempt to persuade the client to respond to any questions truthfully or by asserting an appropriate privilege.
If the client is successful in making a material misrepresentation to the court concerning his true identity, either during a trial or during any court proceeding, the attorney is obligated to take "reasonable remedial measures" to remedy the fraud on the court. Initially, an attorney must attempt to persuade the client to rectify the misrepresentation. If that fails, then the attorney must seek to withdraw, assuming that would remedy the situation. Because withdrawal will rarely remedy the fraud, the attorney may have to remedy the fraud on their own, assuming the client refuses to do so.
If the court asks the attorney and/or the client any questions concerning the client's identity and/or prior record, they may answer truthfully only after the client decides, after consultation with counsel, that doing so is in his or her best interest. The client may also choose to decline to answer based on any applicable privilege.
Issue #3
A client that you're representing states, during her deposition, that she was "far away" from the crime scene on the day that the victim was shot. In fact, she states further that she was in California during the shooting, attending her cousins' graduation. You learn after the deposition that your client intentionally lied. The case is still pending. What, if anything, are you obligated to do?
Answer to Issue #3
Once an attorney learns that his client intentionally committed perjury during a deposition, he must immediately attempt to persuade that client to reveal the fraud to the court. If the client refuses to remedy the fraud herself, the attorney must withdraw from representation and must disclose the perjury committed by his client to the court.
参考链接
家园 这可太专业了 通常情况下，山某是不会和专业人士争人家的专业的，特别是法律问题。不过在这儿就是好玩说一说，有什么不沾边儿的说法请不要客气。别人是抛砖引玉，我这连砖都没有，就送头给砖吧
同意你说的在客户没有必要保证一定要对律师讲出全部真情，也没有必要完全对律师讲实话。可山某的印象里，客户可以不说，但不可以在有记录的情况下说谎。在这个案例里，山某觉得应该是有Issue #3的情况吧。详情大概要去查法庭记录了，可大致上应该有一个类似的deposition，Conley说自己没杀人吧？也就是说从这一步开始，他就在prejury了。所以律师是有权撤消代理，并且向法庭告发。如果他告诉了律师他杀了人，那么律师可以不让他直接回答这个问题。而且在庭审的时候，律师也可以不让他出庭做证。因为Conley没告诉律师实情，正好解脱了律师。
- 复 这可太专业了
家园 是的，简单地说就是， 被告有权沉默，但如果开口，那就不能撒谎。
Conley说自己没杀人吧？----这个没看到详细的资料，我不敢下定论。从我现在看到的资料来说，我们只能说：
Conley没说自己杀人。
我没有想明白的是，从Frank宣判之后发生的事件来看，我们可以确定Conley在Frank的庭审中作了伪证----但审理的时候William可能并不能确知。William实际发布公告的时候，Frank和Conley的审理都已经结束----时间或时机以及方式这些因素对William的公告及相应的法律责任或职业伦理应有何影响？
但是这些细节本身并不影响我们对律师在客户做伪证的情况下做一般性的讨论。所以我们可以比较确定地说的两个原则就是：
1. 律师对客户所告知的信息负有保密义务；
2. 在律师明知客户撒谎/做伪证时，律师须向法庭告知欺诈或伪证行为的存在，并有权拒绝继续代理。