Many years ago, the federal government held that a lawyer committed a crime if he advised a client how to protect assets. Although the decision was ridiculous, it was the law for a period of time.
Eventually, the government came to its senses and realized that the issue was not the right of the lawyer to advise, but the right of the public to know. Therefore, the government reversed itself and held it certainly is not a crime for a lawyer to advise a client to protect assets. Clearly, as in all areas of law (particularly constitutional law), the public's right to know is paramount.
A similar situation is in Post 174 , in which the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that you may call yourself a Super Lawyer if the language has the proper restrictions. Again, it is not the First Amendment right of the lawyer to advise, but rather the First Amendment right of the public to know.
Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice and each person may have unique facts for which legal consultation may be necessary.
© May 2012, Post 198
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
We look forward to your comments and encourage you to comment often.