The Justice Department has placed on administrative leave a government immigration lawyer who in court this week expressed frustration at not being able to answer key questions from a judge over a mistaken deportation case, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The lawyer can make any case the client wish, but not by knowingly lying to the court (note that not sharing privileged information is a very different thing). In other words, saying things like “my client’s position is X” rather than making false statements of fact. And not falsely claiming their position has legal support in precedent if they know it doesn’t, etc.
More practically speaking, to ensure their client actually gets competent legal representation they would push their client to accept them presenting multiple legal arguments and not exclusively sticking to the narrative, allowing the lawyer to focus on the client’s legal rights and doing what a lawyer should do (basically “the client does not concede on any point, but if the court finds X then we argue A and if it finds Y we argue B”, offering legal arguments to “hypotheticals”), so you don’t leave any important legal arguments from the opposing side unanswered.
Tldr, make sure that no matter what the court finds, you’re making arguments to protect their legal rights and to ensure sentencing is fair.
And when a client is so unreasonable that their position can’t be represented accurately in a legal manner without simultaneously contradicting the client, well screw that client 🤷
The lawyer can make any case the client wish, but not by knowingly lying to the court (note that not sharing privileged information is a very different thing). In other words, saying things like “my client’s position is X” rather than making false statements of fact. And not falsely claiming their position has legal support in precedent if they know it doesn’t, etc.
More practically speaking, to ensure their client actually gets competent legal representation they would push their client to accept them presenting multiple legal arguments and not exclusively sticking to the narrative, allowing the lawyer to focus on the client’s legal rights and doing what a lawyer should do (basically “the client does not concede on any point, but if the court finds X then we argue A and if it finds Y we argue B”, offering legal arguments to “hypotheticals”), so you don’t leave any important legal arguments from the opposing side unanswered.
Tldr, make sure that no matter what the court finds, you’re making arguments to protect their legal rights and to ensure sentencing is fair.
And when a client is so unreasonable that their position can’t be represented accurately in a legal manner without simultaneously contradicting the client, well screw that client 🤷