No apologies needed, Savi.
I am ready for whatever comes next.
I trust your judgement as to what you will soon be offering us.
You should all know that I read the lectures thoroughly,
but don`t always have the time to reply as extensively as I would like to.
I am very grateful for all the lectures that are provided.
It keeps the spirit of the university and my brainwaves alive.
Thank you
Christine
IntroductionAspiring law students and trainee lawyers are regularly confronted with moral dilemmas at university and as part of their professional training. A "classic" in any course on legal ethics concerns the "Lake Pleasant Bodies Case". It is a suitable - yet horrific - case that can be discussed with a larger audience. No legal hocus pocus or confusing legal terminology. But a direct examination of a cardinal principle of any practicing lawyer: the duty of confidentiality.
The Case
Let's immediately get to the core of the matter. The US based attorney Frank H. Armani was appointed to serve as counsel for Robert Garrow, Sr (a 38-year old mechanic of a Syracuse bakery). Garrow was charged with murdering 18 year old college student Philip Domblewski who was camping in the Adirondacks (a mountain range in the Northeastern part of New York State). The inexperienced Armani invited the seasoned criminal defense attorney Francis Belge to join the matter as co-counsel.
In a confidential client meeting Garrow confessed to tying Domblewski to a tree and stabbing him to death. This gruesome confession was followed by an unsolicited second revelation by Garrow: the murder of Susan Petz and Alicia Hauck (two women who were reported as missing). Armani and Belge discovered the bodies (Pets in an airshaft of a coal mine in Mineville and Hauck in a Syracuse cemetery) following the descriptions of Garrow. Photographs of the corpses and a diagram with instructions to pinpoint both locations were later destroyed by Armani and Belge.
No disclosure was made to the authorities by both lawyers. Hiding behind their duty of confidentiality - and the underlying notion that no person is obliged to incriminate oneself - pleas of the families of both victims were ignored. The remains of Petz and Hauck were accidentally found five months later.
Despite widespread public condemnation, criminal charges and the commencement of disbarment proceedings, Armani and Belge were later absolved of any wrongdoing.
Questions
- What do you think of the case? Is the outcome justified by attorney-client privilege?
- Would disclosure to the authorities be akin to self-incrimination?
- Should there be any limitations on the duty of confidentiality upon the occurrence of certain circumstances?
This case is regularly fiercely debated by lawyers. I am curious to read the views of the uncorrupted minds. 😉
