The blood is on your hands guys.

Withholding Information. In some circumstances, a lawyer may be justified in delaying transmission of information when the client would be likely to react imprudently to an immediate communication. Thus, a lawyer might withhold a psychiatric diagnosis of a client when the examining psychiatrist indicates that disclosure would harm the client. A lawyer may not withhold information to serve the lawyer’s own interest or convenience of the interests or convenience of another person. Rules or court orders governing litigation may provide that information supplied to a lawyer may not be disclosed to the client. Rule 3.4 (3) directs compliance with such rules or orders.

See also Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee Decision, 04-0583, finding that the attorney “engaged in unethical conduct [for] fail[ing] to provide the Complainant with a copy of his complete file in violation of Rule 1.16(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.”

From CT Eth. Op. 95-1 (Conn. Bar. Assn. 1/6/95), quoting from D.C. Bar Committee on Legal Ethics, Opinion 168, 4/15/86:

While it may be impossible to predict with certainty that any particular refusal to deliver any specific document will in fact result in prejudice to the client, a lawyer’s obligation to his client requires that he err, if at all, on the side of serving the client’s interests. This obligation requires an attorney to deliver upon request, the entire contents of the client’s files…

Second of all, I don’t hate criminal defense attorneys, I once helped represent a quintuple murderer, and I believe that defendants are entitled to zealous representation within the bounds of ethics rules.

Third of all, handing over addresses without question increases the risk to witnesses. That is an affirmative act by you, and it is painfully obvious that glee is taken about that by some here. Let’s not forget, we are talking about the risk of harm to innocent people. Let’s say you witnessed a murder, and the defendant was a gang-banger, would you want that guy knowing your home address? What if you had kids? The answer is that you wouldn’t. So what gives you the moral right to impose that risk on others? What if some witness gets retaliated against and decides that you need some retaliation? I hope you wouldn’t expect any sympathy from anyone. And what if the prosecutor decided to exercise prosecutorial discretion and not bring charges? Would you simply agree that’s part of our system?

Fourth, I don’t see where my credibility is shot. It is plainly ovbious that turning over addresses is a danger. And the statement that you have an ethical obligation to do it is bunk. Complete bunk.

Fifth, I think my point about credibility still stands. If you guys want people to take seriously your complaints about how defendants are treated, then you guys need to police this nonsense. Miranda, if I were a prosecuting attorney, and I knew you handed out witnesses’ addresses, I would move for protective orders routinely, and if you ever violated one, and someone got hurt, I’d charge you as an accomplice, and I’d have ZERO sympathy for you. None. Absent the violation of a protective order, I would tell every single witness that it is almost certain that you handed the defendant their addresses, and I would cooperate with you at the absolute minimum level required by the law. Such an approach is completely justified.

It seems to me that your problem really lies with the entire system. I’m sure – in fact, I know – that you are not alone in your anger and resentment towards criminal defense attorneys. But the simple fact remains that sharing discovery with our clients IS a part of our job. It is something that we are obligated to do – and for good reasons, many of which have already been discussed.

It is not always pleasant or easy representing a criminal defendant, but I, for one, have chosen this line of work because I feel it is important for many reasons, not the least of which is defending an individual’s constitutional rights. You know, sometimes we’re fighting for innocent people, and sometimes we’re not. But our ethical obligations to the client don’t change based on whether our clients are innocent or not.

Our system simply cannot function if criminal defense attorneys are not acting in their clients’ best interests. Once we start behaving like their judge, jury and prosecutor and, for example, start making assumptions about the wisdom of sharing information with them, we cease to be their advocate, and the system ceases to function. There are many other players in the system who will and should act in the public and victim’s best interest. The defense attorney is NOT and CANNOT be one of those people. We are the ONLY ones representing the interests of the one being accused of the crime. That’s just how it is and it’s where the “it’s not my job” thing comes from.

However, this does NOT mean that we are robots without emotion and that we do not care about victims or witnesses or anyone else involved. I am so profoundly insulted that you would suggest that we would derive some kind of pleasure out of our client killing a witness in a case. Or that we enjoy any part of a complaining witness’s pain. Being able to do our job in many cases is emotionally draining and exceedingly complex, and it is utterly ignorant for you to criticize and condemn us for simply performing our function in the system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/nyregion/21witness.html?hp

I’d love to see someone like you have the balls to go talk to Mrs. Fields (the mother of a witness murdered after defense attorneys gave personal info) and revel in how you risk the safety of innocent people. Better yet, why don’t you do it when there’s no one around to protect you.

You probably love hurting complaining witnesses the most. You know, a rape victim, a robbery victim etc. And you’d probably enjoy a win garnered with witness intimidation. Of course, if cops and prosecutors had as little concern for your safety or your family’s safety as you seem to have for other people’s safety, you’d probably scream bloody murder.