Lawyers Are Unregulated: Unless You Have Faith In Attorney Self-Regulation

Does anyone believe that lawyers are regulated - that when a lawyer has been shown to have told lie in court, that he will receive a punishment for the crime? That only happens in fantasy world. Lawyers are "self-regulated". That is another way of saying "Not Regulated".

Why did Martha Stewart go to prison for lying? She was not a lawyer. Why did Bill Clinton escape a prison sentence for lying under oath? He was a lawyer, and they are above the law and only get a slap on the wrist when they commit a crime like that.

Wikipedia (as of Jan 16, 2007) says it well:

[T]he concept of the self-regulating profession has been criticized as a sham which serves to legitimize the professional monopoly while protecting the profession from public scrutiny.[*] Disciplinary mechanisms have been astonishingly ineffective, and penalties have been light or nonexistent.[**][***]

That Wikipedia excerpt referenced these academic sources:
a/k/a Books We Ought To Read

* Richard L. Abel, American Lawyers (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 246.

** Abel,American Lawyers, 147;

Richard L. Abel, The Legal Profession in England and Wales (London): Basil Blackwell , 1989), 135 and 250;

Harry W. Arthurs, Richard Weisman, and Frederick H. Zemans, "Canadian Lawyers: A Peculiar Professionalism," in Lawyers in Society: The Common Law World, vol. 1, eds. Richard L. Abel and Philip S.C. Lewis, 123-185 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 146;

Alan A. Paterson, "The Legal Profession in Scotland: An Endangered Species or a Problem Case for Market Theory?" in Lawyers in Society: The Common Law World, vol. 1, eds. Richard L. Abel and Philip S.C. Lewis, 76-122 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 104;

David Weisbrot, "The Australian Legal Profession: From Provincial Family Firms to Multinationals," in Lawyers in Society: The Common Law World, vol. 1, eds. Richard L. Abel and Philip S.C. Lewis, 244-317 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 284.

*** William T. Gallagher, "Ideologies of Professionalism and the Politics of Self-Regulation in the California State Bar," 22 Pepp. L. Rev. 485, 490-491.(1995).

More Good Reading:

Leslie C. Levin, The Emperor's Clothes and Other Tales About the Standards for Imposing Lawyer Discipline Sanctions, 48 American University Law Review 1 (1998).

Paula A. Monopoli, Legal Ethics and Practical Politics: Musings on the Public Perception of Lawyer Discipline, 10 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 423, 425 (1997).

Nifong Shows Common Dirty Little Lawyer Tricks

Objective: Conduct litigation without regard to truth
Motive: Money and or Power
Method: Conceal evidence, make false statements in court
Case: NC Superior Court 06 CRS 4331

We must wake up from our slumber. We non lawyer citizens, as well as the media, have deluded ourselves into the belief that:

lawyers should be assumed trustworthy

the conduct of lawyers is scrutinized by authorities

and when misconduct is found that lawyers are punished.

The sad truth is that lawyers lie and cheat all the time, as it suits them for their own benefit. It is all about money. Remember: power is just another form of money.

What Crimes Did Mike Nifong Commit?

The rape of the Duke Lacrosse team, and in particular the random threesome of David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann, by Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong was deliberate for the benefit of Mike Nifong. Nifong conspired with the professional (DNA) hired for the case to withhold information, then he lied when he declared before the court that he did not know of any exculpatory evidence. Thus: Lawyer Mike Nifong hid evidence which he was obligated to disclose, and lied about the facts in the proceedings in open court. It is the "Oldest Trick" in The Big Book Of Dirty Little Whore Lawyer Secrets.

Misconduct by Nifong in Duke Criminal Case Reflects Pervasive Attorney Misconduct in Civil Cases

Without detracting from the suffering of all of the Duke players and their families, we only learned of Nifong's dishonesty and fraud because the accused where from wealthy families and they faced 30 years in prison apiece. Those families undoubtedly spent a lot of money on their own lawyers in order to protect their innocent sons from severe consequences. Such scrutiny is not applied when people lives are not on the line, and it is "only" about money. Sadly, the cheating by Nifong in this criminal proceeding was merely par for the course for the conduct of lawyers in civil proceedings. When a lawyer is caught in a fraud on a civil matter, his opposing counsel won't seek justice in the punishment of his criminal opposing counsel.

Like A Doctor Who Intentionally Harms A Patient For Money

This is like a Doctor not telling a patient important test results, then prescribing medicine to make the condition worse because, all because it would make the Doctor richer. If the public learned of a Doctor who did such a thing, we would never allow such a Doctor to practice medicine again. Why do we allow a dishonest lawyer to continue to practice law? We have absolutely no say. Questions of lawyer misconduct are dealt with only by other lawyers, and almost always in private. Do we grant police officers with the sole authority to investigate themselves?

Lawyers Are Not Punished For Their Crimes, But Martha Stewart Goes To Prison

The essential result is that lawyers are not punished for concealing evidence or lying in court. Ironically, the dishonest conduct of one lawyer merely generates additional business for another lawyer. But don't forget that if any of us non lawyers did the same, we'd find our ass in jail! Take Martha Stewart, her incorrect recollection of her stock trade, which she corrected after reviewing her notes, was still enough to put her in prison.

Happens All The Time

Lawyers make false statements in court and conceal evidence in discovery all the time despite the fact that both actions are not just ethical violations but also crimes! Take this case for example:

Objective: Conduct Litigation, ignoring ethics rules and law
Motive: Money, Power, Ingratiate with Conflicted Client
Method: Conceal facts & evidence, false statements to court
Case: [ coming soon ... ]