Is a conflict of interest a lawyer can have unethical, illegal, or it depends?

Specifics?

Let’s have an example. It’ll be long, so, be prepared. A woman has been raped, and, in a court of law, she recognizes the rapist. She can’t testify because the statute of limitations in New York (NOW I remember it applies only there. :( ) has run. But an occasion presents itself: the rapist has murdered other women, and for that the same rapist is now on trial. The problem is that the woman is now a lawyer and if she tell the office, the whole of it conflicts out, and then the defendant will get a beginner of law school . She can’t pass the case to another prosecutor in her office, because they all know how much she wants the case. So, in doing that, the media will dig, and she’ll be disbarred. So, she wants to try her case. If it comes out later that the defendant is the rapist, she can’t always say she didn’t know it was him. So, this is the situation.

That’s not a conflict of interest.

That is a conflict of interest. Attorneys represent their clients interests, not themselves. The prosecutor has personal interest in the case which can interfere with the state’s interests. I do not know the legal consequences for her, but as you point out, if it is discovered there would be an uproar which could give the defendant cause to have the verdict thrown out.

Is the attorney in question the prosecutor or the defendant for the accused. Is it positively established that the accused is, in fact, the attorney’s rapist or not? Was the accused previously convicted of raping the attorney or not?

@Darth_Algar: 1) The Prosecutor. 2) The woman identified it. 3) No.

@luigirovatti

1: That wasn’t entirely clear in your previous post, as one sentence seemed to imply that the attorney in question was the defense’s lawyer while another sentence implied that the attorney was the prosecution’s lawyer. I realize that English is not your first language, but your posts are, more often than not, vague and confusing in their wording. This is something you’d do well to work on.

2: Lots of people identify lots of things. The issue is that eye witness identification is notoriously unreliable. Without solid physical evidence there is nothing to establish that the defendant and the attorney’s rapist (from however long ago) are, in fact, one and the same. The presiding judge may well find that there is no conflict of interest there. This is bolstered by -

3: The fact that the defendant was never convicted (or, apparently, even charged) with the attorney’s rape.

It seems that how much justice a person gets is directly dependent on how much money the lawyer is slated to receive. If that isn’t a conflict of interest, I don’t know what is.

@kritiper That is an agreement in interests. The client and lawyer both benefit.

A conflict would be the lawyer working against the client’s interests.

An example would be an attorney taking a guaranteed losing case only for the money and stretching out the proceedings to maximize the billing.

Although you could proceed if you were upfront about the chances. You could write an agreement saying essentially, “Lawyer has advised Client that Client’s lawsuit is unlikely to succeeed. Client understands and is hiring Lawyer despite the terrible odds.”

@Darth_Algar: 1) Anyway, if the defendant raped her, she can’t be the defendant’s attorney. But you’re right. It’s not entirely clear in the text.

So now she’s a defense attorney, not a prosecutor? You should really decide on the details of your hypothetical and stick with them.

Is there a reason she can’t recuse herself as a prosecutor, and be a witness, and/or provide evidence and/or information to investigators and prosecutors?

IANAL and I don’t know the details, but it seems to me that a Statute of Limitations means that after a certain period, a person can’t be prosecuted for a crime… but it does not mean that people can’t testify that they did what they did, as long as it’s relevant to the court case. And I think a person’s history of attacking others tends to be at least worthy of consideration.

The time period varies by crime and by jurisdiction. Crimes considered heinous generally do not have a statute of limitations at all.

I do think that sexual assault charges tend to be treated too lightly in general…

@Zaku: She can’t testify because the statute of limitations has run years ago. So, obviously she can’t recuse herself. But, even in another case involving the same defendant/rapist, she can’t recuse herself because, in her office, everyone knew how much this case meant to her. If she recuses, the media will dig and she’ll be disbarred. And all this while another beginner from law school will let him walk.
@Darth_Algar: Anyway, if the defendant raped her, she can’t be the defendant’s attorney You said a thing i never did. I was confirming the prosecutor bit.

Precisely because you also saod I said in one line the woman was the defense attorney, and in another the prosecutor.

@luigirovatti

As I said earlier, you’d do well to work on making your writing clearer. That’s not meant as a criticism, mind you, but as a suggestion.

@luigirovatti i think you’re setting up a strawman argument. There’s no reason she couldn’t recuse herself from the case for personal reasons and possibly even give them. She wouldn’t be disbarred.

Are you studying law? What is your interest in all of this?

@Call_Me_Jay I meant the price you pay your lawyer as to the price the other guy pays his lawyer. It’s not the same thing.

@luigirovatti “She can’t testify because the statute of limitations has run years ago. So, obviously she can’t recuse herself. But, even in another case involving the same defendant/rapist, she can’t recuse herself because, in her office, everyone knew how much this case meant to her. If she recuses, the media will dig and she’ll be disbarred. And all this while another beginner from law school will let him walk.”
– I don’t follow your logic here at all.
– I think either you are wrong, or I am wrong, about the legal situation.
– I think statute of limitations means a person can’t be prosecuted for a crime after a certain date.
– I do not think statute of limitations prevents a victim from speaking or formally testifying about that event. It just means there wouldn’t be a prosecution for that event. But the event could still be very relevant to other proceedings. And it offers no protection from people talking about or testifying about past events – it just means a prosecution can’t be brought to court.
– So I don’t see why it matters if the media digs, or if she recuses, or why anyone would disbar her, for telling the truth about an event past the statute of limitations. I don’t understand what logic is leading you to say those things.
– In fact, I would say she should talk about it, should recuse herself, should testify in any case there it’s relevant.
– Also, clearly it is no secret since you and I are chatting about it here. Not that it should be secret.