Law
The People Vs. OJ Simpson
The story behind the people vs. OJ Simpson was good film production based on a real-life story. Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski, who were the creators of the film, made it in a way that OJ Simpson was not retried but focused on the panoramic and detailed view of the people, the forces, and the decisions that led to his freedom. The film had concisely and beautifully portrayed the sexism, racism, celebrity dazzle, and corruption from the police department that had built up in the mid-90s. The real incident happened more than twenty years ago. The events in the film were beautifully layered down with John Travolta playing the role of OJ Simpson.
OJ Simpson
We could only discuss the real OJ Simpson story in detail to get a clear glimpse of what the film series is trying to depict. A crime is an illegal act that, if committed, the consequence is being punished according to the law. For a crime to be punished, there has to be facts or information that can be proven, clarifying that the belief is true. Confirming that the knowledge is correct, there are various tests done on the evidence by a forensic team. Investigators usually collect the evidence. After the evidence is proven to be part of the crime scene, it is then taken to a court of law where trials take place. Should the evidence match with the suspect, he or she is convicted or acquitted.
In the case of OJ Simpson, two bodies were found outside of the home belonging to Nicole Brown. Nicole’s body was one of them alongside that of Ron Goldman. Nicole Brown was OJ Simpson’s ex-wife. Both bodies had several stabs on them. The detectives went to OJ Simpson’s house to give the tragic news to him. They noticed bloodstains on his white Ford and started investigating him without a search warrant. They believed that he might have been injured. The detective, Mark Fuhrman, jumped over the fence and called the three detectives who had been left outside.
As the detective was walking around the house, he came across a bloody glove. After a thorough investigation from the forensic team was done, it was found out that the glove matched with the one found at the crime scene. The evidence had been tampered with and mishandled since the detectives noticed some of the items had gone missing. For example, the vial of blood from OJ Simpson. There wasn’t any security deployed to watch over the evidence. It is until when the trial started that the detectives noticed the missteps of the forensic team.
The investigators had found matching hair with that of Simpson on Ron Goldman’s shirt. The blood found of the socks belonging to OJ Simpson matched with Nicole’s blood. Simpson had a fresh cut on his left arm on the day just after the murder happened. There was also blood on Simpson’s car and driveway, the gloves found at the crime scene, and in Simpson’s house matched, and Simpson’s reaction when he received the phone call were some of the evidence that pinned him as the key suspect. There wasn’t any doubt that Simpson was the murderer.
Despite all that, Simpson did not testify at his criminal trial in court. He conspired with the defense attorneys by planting a fake witness that painted Simpson as innocent. The defense attorney was careful to mention that the jury had done the right thing instead of saying that Simpson was innocent because they knew he was guilty. Simpson was not bothered to look for the real killers of his ex-wife. The jury was quick to dismiss evidence, but when the pictures of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli’s shoe started surfacing, the board was convinced that he murdered Nicole and Ron Goldman and was acquitted.
Ethical theory
The ethical lesson learned from the film is that money makes a difference. Those people that have a lavish lifestyle eat better food, live in big and comfortable houses have a better representation in the society and the court. Most criticisms of the Simpson efforts to defense come from conservatives from the right-wing who extol the virtues of competition in the market economy that is free. What happens is every other aspect of our lives. Having money leads to access to the best lawyers and experts that can make a difference in the results of a judgment or rather a case.
The rules of professional conduct are constraints to the imposed practice of law by the regulators. The provisions of the professional manner are different from ethics. There are three ethical rules which are competence, faithfulness, and fairness. Expertise is an overriding principle that needs to be complied with. The second moral principle is faithfulness. Being faithful to a client requires a lawyer to adhere to several other fundamental principles that don’t allow them to steal, destroy evidence, claim a nonfactual fact or cheat. A conflict of interest is also supposed to be avoided. The third one is fair service charges—the bills of lawyers re often discussed as an ethical question. The fee offered to a lawyer might obstruct justice, causing a moral dimension.
Law
A lawyer-client relationship is essential in law; in this regard, it is protected by the professional ethic rules. As such, the lawyer is expected to exhibit confidence, trust, faithfulness, and loyalty to the client. This type of relationship makes sure that the lawyer seeks to advance the interest of the client always. Confidentiality is also an essential component in law. Privacy entails a set of rules that are usually implemented via confidentiality agreements that restricts access to particular kinds of information Stanley, Paul. The Law of Confidentiality: A Restatement. Hart Publishing, 2018.
. Drawing from the T.V. show, “The People vs. O.J. Simpson,” this paper will focus on the issues of lawyer-client relationship and confidentiality.
Lawyer-Client Relationship
The relationship between a lawyer and the client is untouchable as it is sacred in the eyes of the law. Once a client hires a lawyer, for instance, O.J. Simpsons in the T.V. show “The People vs. O.J. Simpson,” the lawyer is expected to keep communication very discrete and, therefore, the relationship is entirely built on trust. Should any information be disclosed, the court will protect such an instance. The model rules of professional responsibility don’t allow lawyers to have a sexual relationship with a client. It is only exempted when the link was already there before the client-lawyer relationship began. In “The People vs. O.J. Simpson,” OJ Simpson was not portrayed to have any sexual relationship with his lawyer.
There are ways in which a lawyer-client relationship can be ended. The commonly used approach is by hiring a new lawyer. The new lawyer is sent to the old lawyer to inform him of his termination. The second way is by writing to the lawyer informing him of the completion of the lawyer-client relationship. The essential obligations of a lawyer to a client are avoiding cases of conflict of interest, providing competent representation, and maintaining confidentiality, among others.
The code of ethics for the lawyers establishes the rules and principles that should be observed in conduct, which requires them to fulfill their professional responsibilities. The code of conduct helps in preserving their dignity, having respect for others, and maintaining a legal profession. An oath must be taken by every lawyer before proceeding with the lawyer-client relationship and the legitimate activities involved. The principles in the pledge should be a part of the conscience and belief of a lawyer. The relationship between the lawyer and a client, the opposing lawyer, the adverse party, and other lawyers or attorneys, courts, and the bodies that possess public authority are protected by the role of the lawyer under the rights of citizens and legal entities.
A lawyer is expected to behave in a way as to earn and maintain trust among his clients. That is by fulfilling his responsibilities as a professional. A lawyer should preserve the dignity and reputation of his profession both in his private life and at work. The lawyer to OJ Simpson in the T.V. drama is portrayed not to be of ethical conduct since a lot of tension is witnessed around his social scene. A lawyer is supposed to depict a manner that shows acts of respect, humanity, dignity, and efforts that recognize and accomplish fundamental human rights and freedoms. A lawyer is also expected to protect the interests of a client. That is done only in a way that is following the dignity expected of his profession with the law and customs that don’t contradict with those of his conscience.
The lawyer is supposed to preserve his or her independence when representing the client. He shouldn’t accept jobs that would compromise his legal professionals, and that could damage his integrity, reputation, and freedom. Having cooperation with an unlicensed lawyer is contrary to his dignity. A lawyer is not allowed to accept any fee offered to him unless the fee schedule permits it. In any case, a lawyer should continue broadening his legal and general education and his scope of activity with the means accordance with the reputation of a licensed professional and ethical standards.
In the course of practicing law, attorneys are required to be aware of critical areas in their practice, and that must be tackled by professional codes. One such area pertains to honesty, independence, and integrity. Lawyers must ensure that they are independent of the influence of others, as this is key to offering impartial advice and representation to the client. Goebel, Roger J. “Professional Responsibility Issues in International Law Practice.” The
American Journal of Comparative Law (2016): 1-58.
The attorney is also expected to be professional and competent. An attorney should not agree to take up a case that he/she knows will not carry out in a timely and satisfactory way, Pont, Gino. “Ethics column: The lawyer by implication.” Brief 46.4 (2019): 10.
. That perfectly demonstrated in the OJ Simpson case, where the lawyers zealously defended him.
Through the lead lawyer, Johnnie Lee Cochran, the defense team was able to come up with a solid defense that eventually saw their client released. According to them, the evidence against OJ Simpson was planted, and as such, its credibility was questioned. Therefore, the mountain of evidence presented by the prosecution was not adequate to convict him. The ability of these lawyers to identify the best way to defend their clients further illustrated their competence.
Exercising client care is also essential, and this can be attained by treating the client fairly in a way that safeguards their interests, making sure there is a complaints process in place, and ensuring there are enough resources to meet the needs of the clientRahman, Adam. “Cooperation and its discontents: the constitutional and policy
implications of the D.O.J.’s war on corporate crime.” Geo. JL & Pub.Poly 14 (2016): 323.
. Lawyers in the OJ Simpson Case exercised this duty quite well. That is particularly shown by Robert Kardashian, one of Simpson’s attorneys. He was able to convince O.J., who was also a close friend, to surrender to the police after the 60-mile pursuit that had captivated the country.
He put emphasis on the need for Simpson to let the law take its course. Cochran also zealously safeguarded the interests of his client. He knew very well that O.J. was a public figure, and as such, he worked hard to protect the reputation of his client. For instance, he cleverly used the glove test to prove his client’s innocence. According to him, if the glove that was found at the scene of the murder didn’t fit, then it was only fair to acquit Simpson. Apparently, it didn’t fit, and this is one of the factors that eventually saw Simpson being acquitted.
When it comes to fees charged, the attorney should be governed by the principle of fairness. As such, the attorney should ensure that they give the client full information regarding fee arrangementsBasten, John. “The Control and the Lawyer-Client Relationship.” Touro L. Rev. 32 (2016):
7-38.
. Fees should be clarified and if and when they may change. The number of fees charged in Simpson’s case was quite high; it is believed that the prices ran into millions. Notably, the team of lawyers costs him approximately $50,000 daily. The client had agreed to this based on his status in society. The kind of damage that the lawyers were working to rectify was also another factor. That being a high profile case, it was only fair for the lawyers to charge him the way they did.
The standard conception states that attorneys need to adopt a confident attitude towards the cause of their clients. Notably, this doctrine is grounded on the principles of neutrality, partisanship, and non-accountability. With regards to neutrality, the attorney is not allowed to utilize personal perception of that which is the legally permissible alternative for those of legislature; otherwise, this would entail a dangerous shift from democracy are, Tim. The Counsel of Rogues?: A Defence of the Standard Conception of the Lawyer’s Role. Routledge, 2016.
. In OJ Simpson’s case, it is clear that the lawyers did not mind what the media and the nation were saying against their clients. They decided to believe in him and thus focused on defending him.
The crab-rank rule is the duty of a lawyer to accept any work in an area in which they cite to be competent to practice, at a court at which they usually appear, and at their ordinary rates despite their perception of the client or their opinions of the case that they would be tackling flood, John. “Corporate lawyer-client relationships: bankers, lawyers, clients, and enduring
connections.” Legal Ethics 19.1 (2016): 76-96.
. Cochran and his team readily accepted the OJ Simpson case. Cochran mainly specialized in high-profile police brutality cases that involved the Black Americans. Therefore, it was only reasonable for him to take Simpson’s trial as it was nearly similar to the cases he handled.
Cooperation to cooperation, Public companies and their board of directors use their internal investigations, which is not something new. The types of scandals investigated are such as financial, accounting irregularities, and other kinds of misconduct. The officials of law enforcement rooted out fraud in corporations to restore confidence from the public in the capital markets.
Confidentiality
Confidentiality is an essential aspect of law. That is because it serves to help to create and develop trust between the lawyer and the client. It also facilitates the free information flow between the attorney and the client. It acknowledges the personal life of the client and all the problems and issues that they have to belong to them. Lawyers have a duty of confidentiality, where they are obliged to regard the privacy of the affairs of their clients. Information that they receive from the relationships of their clients may be confidential, and must thus not be utilized for the benefit of people the client has not authorized. This issue of confidentiality is well demonstrated in the “The People vs. O.J. Simpson” case. It appears that some of Simpson’s lawyers knew more about the specific details that led to the death of his wife than they were letting the public know. And despite the overwhelming evidence that pointed to O.J. as the murderer, they worked tirelessly to acquit him. Therefore, as his lawyers, they kept the details to themselves, thus winning the trust of their client.
Confidentiality ensures that lawyer-client relationships are protected. That said, lawyer-client communications apply widely to the continuum of interactions regarding matters within the attorney-client relationship. Attorneys may not disclose written or oral communications with clients that clients logically expect to remain confidential. An attorney who has received the confidences of the client is not supposed to repeat them outside the legal team without the consent of the client Raymond-Eniaeva, Elza. Towards a Uniform Approach to Confidentiality of International Commercial Arbitration.Springer, 2019.
. Throughout the trial, O.J. appeared calm and composed and exuded a certain kind of confidence. It was quite clear that he had a great belief in the ability of his lawyers to acquit him. By maintaining confidentiality, Cochran and his team had succeeded in protecting their relationship with him.
As much as the lawyer is expected to protect the client’s confidential information, there are instances where the attorney has a duty to disclose the information. For example, if the client looks for counsel from a lawyer to help to further fraud or crime or conceal a crime, then there is the duty to discloseMackintosh, J. Triplett, and Kristen M. Angus. “Conflict in confidentiality: How E.U. laws
leave in-house counsel outside the privilege.” Int’l Law. 38, (2004): 35.
. The death of a client may also prompt the duty to disclose. If a lawsuit ensues between the deceased’s legatees, heirs, or other parties, then the lawyer may be required to reveal confidential information, Barnett, Jeffrey E., and W. B. Johnson. Ethics Desk Reference for Counselors. 2015.
.
A lawyer should aim at preserving any information’s confidentiality got from a client. That is when the lawyer is still or otherwise rendering legal assistance to the client either during representation or a defense. This action of preserving a client as the lawyer’s secret is conscientiously determined by the lawyer alone. A lawyer exercises reasonable care that ensures the confidentiality of information is also protected by the rest of the people working in the same office as the lawyer. The secrets referred here are recordings, documents, pictures, data in a computer, and similar delicate materials and deposits that are preserved in the office of the lawyer.
Information or details obtained in the course of giving legal assistance to a lawyer or any other legal person must not be used in the proceedings. that could be to the client’s disadvantage. A lawyer is not allowed to use such confidences to the detriment of maybe a single or more members that are interested. These members are of the particular legal person or body, except when rendering legal assistance to a legal person or organization against their members. A lawyer is supposed to preserve the attorney’s secret under threat of disciplinary accountability while providing legal aid and afterward, as long as its disclosure is likely to be detrimental to the client.
In preserving the secret of the lawyer, he or she is not supposed to disclose any detail that is entrusted to him or her by the client. That happens even upon the termination of a case. There are rules that govern the obligation of protecting the lawyer’s secret. These rules should be applied accordingly to the rest of the lawyers and employees working in the same law office. The lawyer is allowed to expressly write down in the contract of work or rather the contract of employment, with employees that the violation of the lawyer’s secret is a base for the termination of employment or rather the severe violation of responsibilities. The revelation of the lawyer’s mystery is permitted only upon the knowledge of the client if it is
necessary for the defense of the lawyer, or if it is essential to justify the lawyer’s decision to withdraw from defending the client.
conflict of interest
Most of the conflict rules are driven by the client’s loyalty. The client has to authorize any adverse action taken by the law firm. The client’s affiliates also have to exercise the duty of loyalty. The responsibility of commitment involves contentious and non-contentious matters despite if the issue is either the same or related to the client’s representation.
In most cases, representing a new client adverse to the former client’s interests in a similar matter is an information barrier that is not possible. In the film, York filled out the spousal conflict form. Mark Fuhrman is the name she poses over before she signed not to have worked with him.
Other officers also dealt with Simpson’s case. The form was not listed; neither was mentioned in Toobin’s book among all different kinds assigned to the L.A.P.D. officers to fill out. In the real sense, the series portrays York as the supervising commander to Fuhrman earlier. She was also one of the first ranked officers in L.A.P.D. the question was whether the form was really filled out, or if she was really there during the investigations. Conflicts of interest are in different ways. Some can arise from the responsibility of a lawyer to a client or at a work station that is held by a legal office.
Some of the unforeseen developments, like the changes in corporate or litigation realignment of parties, create conflict during the representation. Transactional matters can also lead to adverse disputes directly. For example, there are cases where the lawyer represents a seller, and the buyer is also represented by a lawyer in negotiations of another business transaction that is not related. There has to be informed consent of each client since the lawyer is the same person.
Conclusion
A lot can be drawn from the T.V. show, “The People vs. O.J. Simpson. From this case, the importance of lawyer-client relationships is demonstrated. Client care and competence are illustrated as vital factors in winning an argument. The significance of confidentiality is also shown. Privacy not only helps to create and develop trust between the lawyer and the client but also lawyer-client relationships. The rules of professional conduct are different from ethics. The three ethical standards, which are competence, faithfulness, and fairness, strengthen the lawyer-client relationship, and help in obtaining justice. In OJ Simpson’s story, according to the people vs. OJ Simpson, his popularity and wealth made him able to hire the best lawyers who managed to help him win the case hence obstructing justice.
Bibliography
Books
Barnett, Jeffrey E., and W. B. Johnson. Ethics Desk Reference for Counselors. 2015.
Dare, Tim. The Counsel of Rogues?: A Defence of the Standard Conception of the Lawyer’s
Role.Routledge, 2016.
Reymond-Eniaeva, Elza. Towards a Uniform Approach to Confidentiality of International Commercial Arbitration.Springer, 2019.
Stanley, Paul. The Law of Confidentiality: A Restatement. Hart Publishing, 2018.
Journals
Basten, John. “The Control and the Lawyer-Client Relationship.” Touro L. Rev. 32 (2016): 7-
38.
Dal Pont, Gino. “Ethics column: The lawyer by implication.” Brief 46.4 (2019): 10.
Flood, John. “Corporate lawyer-client relationships: bankers, lawyers, clients, and enduring
connections.” Legal Ethics 19.1 (2016): 76-96.
Goebel, Roger J. “Professional Responsibility Issues in International Law Practice.” The
American Journal of Comparative Law (2016): 1-58.
Mackintosh, J. Triplett, and Kristen M. Angus. “Conflict in confidentiality: How E.U. laws
leave in-house counsel outside the privilege.” Int’l Law. 38, (2004): 35.
Rahman, Adam. “Cooperation and its discontents: the constitutional and policy implications
of the D.O.J.’s war on corporate crime.” Geo. JL & Pub.Poly 14 (2016): 323.
