🎓🎓 PPG University > The outer fringes of confidentiality Alltag von überall

Introduction

Aspiring 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. 😉

Thank you for your lecture!! 🙂 That case is very scary and I think it is most bad for the families of the victims. 😬 I think they are more important than the criminal. But i cant answer all questions yet because I dont understand what you mean with self-incrimination? And is privilege that you keep things a secret what the criminal says to you? 🙄🙄

I hope that you can maybe explain that later. Thank you very much!! 🙏🙏

Thank you for your interest in the topic. To answer your queries:

- In essence, self-incrimination is a statement which may expose the relevant person to (further) criminal charges and prosecution. This duty extends to any (defense) attorneys who represent the relevant client in ongoing investigations or criminal proceedings. Applied to the Lake Pleasant Bodies Case: would any disclosure to the authorities about the location of the bodies of Susan Petz and Alicia Hauck trigger new charges against Robert Garrow? If so: would a disclosure obligation be in conflict with Garrow's right to refrain from self-incrimination?

- Attorney-client privilege refers to the confidential nature of communications between an attorney and a client. The attorney has a duty to treat such information as confidential. Some common exceptions do apply (e.g. information shared by the client which is publicly available).

- Be mindful not to refer to the defendant in pending criminal proceedings as a "criminal". A presumption of innocence applies by virtue of which a defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Such a cool topic!

- 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?

Well, this is slightly off topic but it kind of reminds of top lawyers trying their best to defend terrorists who killed countless people. Who in their right mind could possibly invest energy in trying to help such demonic individuals? I understand the moral system is more subjective than one may think, but still.

As for your initial question, I would instinctively consider not speaking out being akin to complicity. However, I understand that if lawyers are unable to withhold any incriminating information then it renders their position completely useless: they would basically turn into an extra prosecutor. Drawing a line somewhere is most likely close to impossible as it would instantly open Pandora's box. Therefore, I think they shouldn't have to disclose information, even though it feels wrong to say.

Bear with me as I have a somewhat limited understanding of the justice system, but this challenge is interesting!

Hi Savi,

thank you for your contribution.
I added it in NEWS-Report

What a coincidence! I just watch the series
"the good wife".
Do you know it?
I bet these attorneys would find a way to
make sure the bodys would be found.
In the series the lawyers are permanently
on the edge of acting criminal.
Due to the competition among lawyers
and/or the belief in a higher justice.

It is obvious that rules made by humans
cannot always be applied to all situations.
Consultants with a higher level of awareness
should be consulted in these cases at the latest.

Christine

Thank you Etienne, Christine and earlier also Yue for your participation in the discussion.

In response:

@Etienne: Those who face accusations in criminal proceedings have the right to defend themselves. This is a core principle which facilitates a humane justice system. Trials by kangaroo courts and confessions obtained under duress are – and should be – largely sinister relics of the past.

At least in theory, the public prosecutor is equipped with full knowledge of both criminal law and criminal procedural law. This creates a massive imbalance as between the public prosecutor and the defendant. The appointment of an attorney is aimed at creating a level playing field and to make access to legal knowledge a reality.

In proper functioning justice systems, the “wicked and evil” will face justice. Access to an attorney cements – again, at least in theory – the weight of a conviction for crimes committed.

This would be my response in a “black and white” world. Some nuances are omitted quite deliberately to enable a high level discussion.

@H_E_A_R_T: I am not familiar with the series “The good wife”. But your statement is intriguing that: “In the series the lawyers are permanently on the edge of acting criminal.” Were the defense attorneys in the Lake Pleasant Bodies Case in a similar precarious situation? Was their behaviour criminal? Were they – as also seems to be the general feeling of Etienne – an accomplice by their mere silence? Please consider the below and reconsider where appropriate.

Additional facts and considerations:

It is time to blur or clarify matters (make a pick) by listing some additional facts and considerations. Fun exercise: which facts and considerations are relevant; which are only mentioned to cloud your judgment?

- When taking photographs of the corpses, the body of Hauck was moved by Belge to capture the dismembered part of her body on the photograph. Subsequently, the photographs were destroyed (together with the notes of the confidential client meeting in prison and the diagram with instructions about the location prepared by Garrow). Does any of the above constitutes “tampering with evidence”? Do mere observers suddenly become involved as complicit actors?

- The murdered women were young (Hauck was 16 and Petz was 20). The daughter of one of the attorneys (Armani) even was a former classmate of Hauck. Both Hauck and Petz were abducted, raped and murdered in separate incidents. As the authorities suspected Garrow’s involvement, the fathers of both women have repeatedly tried to obtain information from Armani. No information concerning the whereabouts of Hauck and Petz were shared with their distraught families.

- In a post-Watergate world, the public’s distrust of lawyers was in sharp contradiction with the general support received by Armani and Belge from the legal community. Armani and Belge had to relocate to protect their families. Death threats and vandalism were unwelcome guests in the wake of public outrage.

- In the United States (and also in most other Western countries), there is a statutory obligation to report the location of a corpse. Do you consider it justified that priority is given to attorney-client privilege as an exemption to this rule?

Apologies for this rather extensive response from my side. It is a small pain to read as compared to the dilemmas faced by all those involved in this antagonizing case.

It is like a Netflix movie but that case really happened so that is more scary to read. I think that movies which really happened are also more scary than just fiction movies or horror that is exaggerated or unreal. 🙄🙄

But i was shocked that you wrote that the lawyer is a father and his daughter is in the same class as the victim!!!! 😳😳😳 How can he keep it a secret where the body is of the victim??? 😧 Can he maybe not say where the bodies are without people knowing that he said it? Like writing a note without a name and sending it to the police? Is that possible?

Is the criminal still living in jail? I hope it!!! 👮‍♂️👮‍♂️👮‍♂️👮‍♂️

Thank you Yue for your comment. I have to admit that I rarely watch movies on Netflix. But I understand that the Lake Pleasant Bodies Case and similar true crime cases exert a special kind of tension when people are confronted with the frightful circumstances as happened in real life.

Anonymous disclosure of information

You are correct that Dorina Armani (the daughter of defense attorney Frank Armani) also attended the Bishop Ludden High School together with Alicia Hauck and her sisters. Frank Armani was also acquainted with Alicia's father who worked at the local courthouse, went to the same church and even lived in the same neighbourhood. The Lake Pleasant Bodies Case preceded the use of DNA in criminal investigations. But other incriminating evidence may have been found at the scenes where the bodies of Petz and Hauck were hidden. An anonymous tip by Armani would still amount to a breach of attorney-client privilege.

What happened to Garrow?

Garrow was convicted of Domblewski’s murder and was sentenced to 35 years to life in prison. Following an escape from prison, Garrow was killed in a gunfight with police officers. In an interesting turn of events, it appears that Garrow was found on the basis of information shared by Armani (in breach of his duty of confidentiality)! In his own words about what was disclosed to the authorities:

"Well I told the police to look for a radio. If he's got a radio he's not going to break out of the area. He's going to find a good spot to stay low, and when you've given up the search, then he'll be free to move. Because that's the way he operated when they were searching. When Garrow killed the Domblewski boy up there in the Adirondacks, the police had the largest manhunt in the country, in the history of New York. Garrow was a mountain man. He lived in that area. He was born and raised in those mountains."

Dorina Armani and personal threats

What could explain this sudden U-turn in Armani's behaviour? Armani divulged as he was himself included on a death list which was discovered in the cell of Garrow following his escape (co-counsel Belge also obtained a prominent spot on that list). Previously, Garrow had sued Armani and repeatedly threatened his family.

A chilling example happened at the trial for Domblewski’s murder. At the start of a hearing one day, Garrow looked at Armani's daughter and said: "Good to see you again Dorina." It suddenly became apparent that Garrow may have been stalking Dorina Armani in the past!

When asked about his motives to disclose information shared by Garrow in confidence, Armani responded:

"I was on a death list. He had sued me. And my family was threatened, my wife and children. Nothing goes before that. (...) I felt that my primary duty to society and to my family was to get him recaptured and locked up to serve his sentence. He and I had parted company when he threatened my life."

The families of Susan Petz and Alicia Hauck repeatedly pleaded for information about whether Susan and Alicia were still alive or where their remains were hidden. They were left emptyhanded. The duty of confidentiality was used as a shield by Armani to ignore desperate cries for information of the Petz and Hauck families, but was shamelessly abandoned when the Armani family found itself in Garrow's spotlight.

Natural and legal boundaries

At first sight this may seem utmost appalling. Or should we emphasize a remarkable difference with the harrowing circumstances of Petz and Hauck? If such a main difference is identified, have we also found a natural or legal limitation to the scope of the duty of confidentiality?

The main quest of our legal exploration is almost over. The outer fringes of the duty of confidentiality are nearly within sight.

I am happy that Garrow who killed the others did not escape longer and hurt more victims. But I dont know the answer about the main difference and maybe @Etienne or @H_E_A_R_T know the answer for that (or maybe others like @Lianshen or @Simone724 because they also know a lot about psychology and complicated things). 🤷‍♀️ Maybe because this time it is his daughter and not of the other two families? But i think it is not fair to the other ones and he only makes an exception for his family. 🙄🙄

Is this a fictional story to make an exercise out of it or does it come from real life events?

What is your job exactly?

Is this a fictional story to make an exercise out of it or does it come from real life events?

What is your job exactly?

Perhaps it may be of interest to have a look at 372 N.Y.S.2d 798 in the matter of People v. Belge - publicly available for reference on the website https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/1975/83-misc-2d-186-372-n-y-s-2d-798.html

In the tsunami of academic and professional writings on the Lake Pleasant Bodies Case (also known as the Buried Bodies Case), it may also be a useful exercise to read https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1240&context=scholar for statements made by Armani (some of them have been used above).

In summary: yes, the case is real. Above is just a rough outline of the case - stripped of additional details and nuances - which is already a lot to digest for (non-)lawyers. If it is of interest to this penpal community (particularly those who have an appetite for ethical and legal dilemmas), I can present some other examples which are not flooded with incomprehensible legal concepts and unnecessary complex terminology. If no such appetite exists on this forum, please do let me know here or in a personal message. Don Quixote is a nice read, but I do not wish to chase windmills myself.

To answer your second query: I work at a law firm in The Netherlands and also have a research position at a Dutch university. Considering your interest in the matter, I will inform you in the event that new vacancies emerge on the horizon.

If it is of interest to this penpal community (particularly those who have an appetite for ethical and legal dilemmas), I can present some other examples which are not flooded with incomprehensible legal concepts and unnecessary complex terminology. If no such appetite exists on this forum, please do let me know here or in a personal message. Don Quixote is a nice read, but I do not wish to chase windmills myself.

To answer your second query: I work at a law firm in The Netherlands and also have a research position at a Dutch university. Considering your interest in the matter, I will inform you in the event that new vacancies emerge on the horizon.

I like philosophical dilemmas, but I wouldn't say I have an insatiable appetite for legal matters 😛. I'm curious about the technicality of things, and I find especially interesting how the law is interpreted depending on the country. For instance, in the US they have absolute freedom of speech, but in France denying that certain events happened can land you in jail.

I was listening to a podcast yesterday in which they talked about the legal system under the Roman Empire - which our current systems derive from -, maybe it will be of interest to you (unless you already know the history). Anyway, this is the bit: https://youtu.be/DyoVVSggPjY?t=3994 .

Podcast

Thank you for sharing this link. I will listen to it with great interest (preferably at a time when our two daughters (read: minions) do not consider their parents as suitable objects for target practice)!

Roman law - at least a general introduction to Roman law - is often a compulsory element in the law school curriculum of European universities. In particular concepts of contract law and property law regularly have a Roman origin. Do realize that it was mostly the "other Rome" (i.e. Constantinople in the Eastern Part of the Roman Empire) that served as a cradle for the development of legal doctrine.

Bankruptcy in Roman times: from enslavement to voluntary surrender of the estate

An example which may be a fun read - not too technical and boring - is the treatment of bankrupt debtors under Roman law. Initially, if a debtor was unable to pay his debts to a creditor, the latter was entitled to enslave and sell the debtor (and of course members of his family) on the slave market. In the famous Laws of the Twelve Tables (initial foundation of Roman law) it was even said that the debtor could be divided literally between creditors. The allocation of body parts did not need to occur on a pro rata basis. Whether this practice soon became a metaphor (instead of dissection of the debtor: a dissection of his estate) is a matter of academic debate.

In any case, the Romans developed the concept of the cessio in bonorum. In essence, a debtor woud voluntarily surrender his estate to his creditors (thereby avoiding enslavement or other sinister outcomes). Plain vanilla bankruptcy proceedings in modern times share the same hallmarks: liquidation of the estate for the joint benefit of creditors.

From medieval debtor prisons to ordinary winding-up in modern times

Whereas this may seem logical and taken for granted in the modern age, do briefly consider the harsh debtor prisons and other criminal sanctions across Europe after the demise of the Roman empire. The criminalization of bankruptcy was subsequently abolished by commercially oriented states (the Dutch are a good example) as it was deemed an inevitable part of trade that people may just "go bust". The main justification to escape religious condemnation and the predominant criminal law treatment of bankrupt debtors: the influence and reception of Roman law. The cessio in bonorum (or modern adaptations) was reinstated and still forms the basis of modern winding-up proceedings of bankrupt debtors.

Initially, if a debtor was unable to pay his debts to a creditor, the latter was entitled to enslave and sell the debtor (and of course members of his family) on the slave market.

The historian does mention this in the podcast. Interestingly, regular citizens could be mere peasants and slaves could be doctors.

The historian does mention this in the podcast. Interestingly, regular citizens could be mere peasants and slaves could be doctors.

That is strange that a doctor can be a slave!! He can say ok i make you better, but only if I am free.

And sometimes I feel like a slave in school. 😛 No that is a joke of course 🙂

In response to the above comments: skilled slaves were desirable "objects" to acquire at a local slave market. Nevertheless, they remained the property of their legal owner (similar to tools and machinery in a workshop; they were not deemed to be employees). The owner had large discretionary powers to determine the fate of his slaves. Corporal punishment, abuse of any kind and even death (e.g. by exhaustion or as a capital punishment) were not only permitted, they were common occurrences in Ancient Rome.

A more lenient (but not yet humane) attitude in the treatment of slaves became apparent in the higher echelons of Roman society. Although not required by law, some limitations were deemed to naturally apply on moral grounds. In the words of Seneca:

"It is creditable to a man to keep within reasonable bounds in his treatment of his slaves. Even in the case of a human chattel one ought to consider, not how much one can torture him with impunity, but how far such treatment is permitted by natural goodness and justice, which prompts us to act kindly towards even prisoners of war and slaves bought for a price (how much more towards free-born, respectable gentlemen?), and not to treat them with scornful brutality as human chattels, but as persons somewhat below ourselves in station, who have been placed under our protection rather than assigned to us as servants."

In the course of time new laws were promulgated which - more or less - imposed restrictions on the dominion over slaves. Penalties were introduced for the unjust killing of a slave. And upon the mistreatment of a slave, the owner could be compelled to sell the slave on the market. Under Emperor Antoninus Pius, the owner could even be tried for homicide for killing a slave without a just cause. Note a remarkable shift in perspective: homicide naturally assumes the killing of a "human" (a label coveted but not earned under applicable laws by slaves).

A "technical" flaw of such proceedings against an owner is that slaves could only testify after undergoing torture and under certain circumstances could be punished by being burnt alive for such testimonies. For some this may not have been an appealing prospect...

Interesting!

Apologies to Christine who invited me to provide "a" lecture for the PPG University. Above is an unholy trinity - three lessons for the price of (n)one - which took us from the mountain ranges of the State of New York to the slave markets in Ancient Rome.

Lawyers tend to talk too much (not sure whether this phenomenon is inextricably linked to working on the basis of an hourly rate). Save for any Q&A, I think that we have reached the finish line of this initial scribble on law and morality.

Gratitude to all persons who were able to endure their first (?) legal snowstorm.