Not everyone who says they are guilty is guilty of course. Some people are nuts, some would prefer to avoid jail than to avoid conviction, and some people don’t understand that though they did what they are alleged to have done, that does not in law make out the crime they are charged with. But those concerns do not justify the obligation of confidentiality in the solicitor, or the privilege enjoyed by the criminal. They require some lesser set of safeguards.

It might be said that if there were no confidentiality in admissions of guilt, no one would tell their solicitors they were guilty, and that would be socially undesirable because at least now lawyers whose clients tell them they’re guilty are significantly constrained in how they can put the clients’ case. But the response is obvious: people already have an incentive not to tell their solicitors that they are guilty.

Why is it permissible for a lawyer to assist a man she knows to be guilty with his plea of not guilty, and subsequent defence but it is not permissible for the same lawyer to suggest alternative case theories which explain all the proven facts but inconsistent with her instructions in order to cast doubt on the Crown’s case? There is no bright line between the two scenarios is there? Isn’t it a question of degree?

I also believe Hughes did the right thing, both morally and in terms of his duty to his late client.

I can’t accept that privilege persists even after a client’s death. That’s gotta be nonsense. Looks like the North Carolina State Bar saw it the same way.

Hizzonner sounds like a real prick, though. One of your black-letter Barwick types, no doubt.

As for continuing to act for some turd who ‘fesses-up to you that he dunnit, there’s no problem with that. Provided, of course, he doesn’t hop the Box and try to give false testimony.

You can’t let him do that.