Linda
Duty of loyalty
A lawyer owes a duty of loyalty to their client and must abide by the client's decisions concerning the objectives of the representation. While the lawyer controls the tactical and strategic means of achieving those objectives, the client retains ultimate authority over fundamental decisions. In a criminal case, the decision of whether to accept a plea offer rests exclusively with the client.
Here, Dan made a clear and informed decision to accept the prosecutor's plea offer, thereby setting the objective of his case. Linda’s personal philosophy that all clients should go to trial is not a permissible reason to override her client's explicit instruction. By moving for a continuance against Dan's wishes, she substituted her own judgment for her client's on a matter reserved for his ultimate authority.
Therefore, Linda violated her ethical duty of loyalty by failing to abide by her client's fundamental decisions.
Duty Upon Withdrawal
When terminating representation, a lawyer must take reasonable steps to protect a client's interests. This includes giving reasonable notice and ensuring the client is not abandoned at a critical stage of the proceedings without the opportunity to secure new counsel.
Here, Linda sought to withdraw at the very moment her client intended to enter his plea. This withdrawal, which was caused by her own refusal to follow Dan's instructions, left Dan unrepresented at a critical juncture. Her actions failed to protect Dan's interests and effectively abandoned him before a crucial court appearance. Linda might argue that her withdrawal was a strategic attempt to secure more time for Dan's case, believing the judge would not proceed with the plea without counsel present. However, this argument would likely fail. The proper recourse for a lawyer whose motion is denied is to object on the record to preserve the issue for appeal, not to engage in the controversial act of withdrawal, which potentially violates the duty of loyalty and abandons the client.
Therefore, Linda violated her duty to protect her client's interests upon withdrawal.
Pat
Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence
A prosecutor's primary duty is to seek justice, not merely to obtain a conviction. This role as a minister of justice imposes a special, affirmative duty to make timely disclosure to the defense of all known evidence that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offense. This obligation is continuous and applies even after a guilty plea has been entered.
Here, The accident report concluding the sun was a dangerous hazard was material, exculpatory evidence. It directly supported Dan's lack of intent and was highly relevant to sentencing. Pat's decision to conceal this report after Dan had already pled guilty was a knowing violation of his duty to disclose favorable evidence.
Therefore, Pat violated his ethical duty to disclose exculpatory evidence.
Duty of Fairness to the Opposing Party
A prosecutor has a duty to act fairly toward criminal defendents, which includes honoring promises made as part of a plea agreement. A defendant waives fundamental constitutional rights in reliance on the prosecutor's promises, and a subsequent breach of that agreement is fundamentally unfair.
Here, Pat offered, and Dan accepted, a plea agreement that included a recommendation for a five-year sentence. In reliance on that promise, Dan pled guilty. By later arguing for a sentence based on an "intentional act," Pat effectively reneged on his end of the bargain, thereby acting unfairly toward Dan, who had already performed his part of the agreement.
Therefore, Pat violated his duty of fairness to the opposing party by breaching the plea agreement.
Duty of Candor to the Court
A prosecutor, like all lawyers, owes a duty of candor to the court and must not engage in conduct involving dishonesty.
Pat's argument to the judge that the evidence was "consistent with an intentional act" was a severe breach of his duty of candor. He made this assertion while knowingly possessing an expert accident report that provided strong evidence to the contrary. His argument was therefore a deliberate misrepresentation to the tribunal.
Therefore, Pat violated his duties of candor to the court.
Judge
Accept Dan’s guilty plea
A judge must ensure any guilty plea is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. This requires a direct inquiry with the defendant on the record to confirm they understand the rights they are waiving and the consequences of their plea. If a defendant is unrepresented, the judge has a heightened duty to ensure any waiver of the right to counsel is valid.
Here, The judge accepted Dan's plea "without further inquiry" immediately after his attorney withdrew and while Dan was emotionally distressed. This was improper. The judge failed to confirm whether Dan wanted new counsel appointed and failed to conduct the necessary colloquy to ensure the plea was truly voluntary and intelligent under the circumstances.
Sentencing
Furthermore, if a judge decides to reject the sentence recommendation after a defendant has already entered a plea in reliance on it, the judge must give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw their plea.
Here, The judge decided to reject the five-year sentence recommended in the plea bargain. At that point, the proper procedure was to inform Dan of this decision and ask him if he wished to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial. Instead, the judge held Dan to his plea while denying him the benefit of the bargain, which is fundamentally unfair.
（题目没问，可选）
Duty of Competence
While a judge is a neutral arbiter and is not expected to investigate the facts of every case, they must be proficient in the law they are tasked with applying. The judge's actions in this case demonstrated a significant lack of competence in basic criminal procedure. The combination of errors—improperly accepting a plea from an unrepresented defendant, failing to conduct the required inquiries, and failing to apply the correct procedure for rejecting a plea bargain—reveals a pattern of fundamental mistakes. Such a series of errors in a serious felony case suggests the judge was not sufficiently competent to preside over the matter.
Therefore, The judge breached his ethical duty to perform his judicial role with the required competence.
(900-1000 words)