As for repping cops, it is a different world from anyone else. But that’s something you have to experience. Kinda like the mob, but much more controlling and they pay better.

I wonder if we’ll live long enough for the general public to stop equating “lawyer” with “liar.” A few less red herring might help.

Now, I have not yet represented a police officer, so I don’t know if it is indeed true that the police corps demand that every accusation be loudly and vehemently denied. That may very well be the case.

As to other clients, however, I think I would be unable to make statements that don’t pass the blush test. There’s a difference between proclaiming your client’s innocence and positing unbelievable explanations.

Scott says: “there is no alternative to perform their function if they are ethically prevented in the content of their speech.”

But I don’t think that’s what is happening here. The lawyers could very well have said nothing (or something more restrained like the third lawyer quoted above). After all, no one was ever found guilty because a lawyer said “no comment” on the courthouse footsteps.

I do think we are doing our profession a disservice by spouting nonsense such as this. The question of whether we should care about it at all is an interesting one and I argue we should. After all, the people watching you on the TV tonight are tomorrow’s jurors.

Being paid to be a mouthpiece cannot simply mean a freehand to say whatever your client puts in your mouth — or whatever you can dream up to make the prosecution look bad, without regard to the facts, or based on intentional ignorance of the facts.

The lawyer’s duties to a client shouldn’t totally overshadow duties to the administration of justice and to the public’s interest in the justice system and effective and fair law enforcement.

While good taste and discretion might prevent most defense lawyers from touting vapid explanations, mostly because it will likely harm the client when shown to be empty, there is no alternative to perform their function if they are ethically prevented in the content of their speech.

There must be a free hand in proclaiming innocence and explaining away accusations, or the attorney’s silence will be a condemnation. That won’t work either.

But, your lawyerly “within the bounds of the law” is not particularly helpful. Beyond asserting that your client is not guilty, I believe intentionally misleading the public should be considered unethical for officers of the court.

As to the latter, these relatively flimsy arguments would be subject to scrutiny and criticism in a larger city with more media and strong civil rights involvement. If the media statements in Schenectady aren’t scrutinized by the media or any adversarial group, they will go unchallenged and frame the controversy.

But the one thing to remember is that the defense has no duty of fairness to the public. It’s only duty is to its clients within the bounds of the law.