And I Follow His Directions*

Any good lawyer will tell you that no matter what else you do, you have to tell your lawyer the truth. The only way a lawyer can do a solid job of defending a client is if that lawyer knows everything about an incident. Sometimes clients don’t want to tell the whole truth, perhaps because it’s embarrassing, or because the client is guilty and doesn’t want to admit it. But the fact is, a lawyer can’t do the job without all the information. That’s why there needs to be a trusting relationship between lawyer and client. And crime fiction shows us how important that trust is.

In Erle Stanley Gardner’s The Case of the Singing Skirt, Perry Mason takes on the case of Ellen Robb. She works as a singer, hostess, and cigarette girl at a gambling club owned by George Anclitis. When he tells her to help him scam one of the regular customers, Helman Ellis, she refuses. Not long afterwards, Anclitis accuses Ellen of theft and fires her. Ellen says she’s innocent and was framed. Then, Ellis’ wife Nadine is murdered. Ellen is accused of the crime, and it turns out that she’d been having an affair with the victim’s husband. She claims she’s not guilty and wants Mason to defend her. But is she saying everything she knows? Is she hiding things? Della Street doesn’t trust her, but she’s Mason’s client….

William Deverell’s Trial of Passion is the first of his series featuring semi-retired lawyer Arthur Beauchamp. In the novel, he agrees to defend Jonathan O’Donnell, who is acting dean of law at the University of British Columbia. It seems that law student Kimberley Martin has accused O’Donnell of rape, and his career, to say nothing of his freedom, is in jeopardy. The only things both parties agree to is that the two were at a party where they’d been drinking, and that a group of people went back to O’Donnell’s house after the party. At first, O’Donnell claims there was no intercourse. Then reluctantly, he admits that there was, but insists it was consensual. It takes time for Beauchamp to get O’Donnell to tell him the actual truth about what happened, so it’s very hard for him to defend his client. It’s interesting to consider just how the case would have gone if O’Donnell had told Beauchamp everything from the beginning.

In Robert Rotenberg’s Old City Hall, famous radio host Kevin Brace is accused of murdering his common-law wife, Katherine Torn. He’s even told a witness that he killed her. But he’s entitled to a lawyer, and he specifically asks for Nancy Parish. She wants to do the best job she can to defend him but it’s not going to be easy. For one thing, he only communicates in writing. Even when they’re meeting in person, he passes her notes instead of speaking. For another, she gets the strong feeling that he’s holding back. He isn’t telling everything he knows, so she doesn’t have all of the information she needs to put the case together. It’s going to take a lot of effort for her to build trust with Brace so she can defend him.

In Gianrico Carofiglio’s Involuntary Witness, we are introduced to Bari-based lawyer Guido Guerrieri. One day, he is approached by a woman named Abajaje Deheba. She tells Guerrieri that her partner, Abdou Thiam, has been accused of abducting and murdering a nine-year-old boy. She claims that Thiam is innocent, but he doesn’t seem to even want a lawyer, let alone try to defend himself. Guerrieri agrees to at least meet with the man. When he does, Thiam tells him that he’s certain he’ll end up in prison, because he won’t get a fair trial. Guerrieri has a difficult time convincing Thiam to help defend himself, but he finally manages to get the man to tell him what happened. Thiam doesn’t trust Guerrieri at first, but Guerrieri gets to work on the case. It’s not until Thiam begins to grudgingly believe in his lawyer that Guerrieri can do his job.

Michael Connelly’s The Fifth Witness sees Los Angeles-based attorney Mickey Haller defending Lisa Trammel. She had a mortgage with WestLand Financial. When she didn’t keep up the payments, the bank threatened foreclosure. She first approaches Haller to get some help with her foreclosure notice. She blames the bank, claiming it’s involved in fraud. Then, Mitchell Bondurant, who handled her mortgage, is found murdered. As you might expect, Lisa Trammel is a very likely suspect, and is, in fact, charged with the crime. She tells Haller she’s innocent and he goes to work defending her. There are other possible suspects and Haller does what he can to get his client acquitted. But is she being honest with him? Has she trusted him enough to let him do his job? If someone else is the murderer, then who is it? It’s an interesting look at the lawyer/client relationship.

Ferdinand von Schirach’s The Collini Case is the story of newly-minted lawyer Casper Leinen. He’s taking his turn at standby duty for legal aid when he gets a call that a man named Fabrizio Collini has been arrested for murder. Collini is an Italian émigré who lived peacefully in Germany for many years. Then one day, he traveled to Berlin, went to the Hotel Adlon, and murdered successful executive Jean-Baptiste Meyer. He admits he’s guilty but won’t say anything more. German law requires that all defendants be represented by a lawyer, so he’s obligated to work with Leiner. That doesn’t mean he’s willing, though. He says almost nothing when they first meet, and even after they spend some time together, he doesn’t tell his story. So Leiner is at a real loss at first. He has to do a lot of research and a lot of ‘legwork’ to find out the background information he’d have had if Collini had just told him what he knew. And then, he has to prepare for what will be a difficult battle in court.

There are several reasons why a person might not tell a lawyer everything, especially at first. But real life and crime fiction both tell us that things generally go a lot better if the client trusts the lawyer enough to be honest and forthcoming.

*NOTE: The title of this post is a line from Dave Frishberg’s My Attorney Bernie.

 


10 thoughts on “And I Follow His Directions*

  1. I don’t much like legal thrillers (barring Perry Mason’s but I don’t see them as legal thrillers:) but now am interested in Trial of Passion. Incidentally what is the meaning of common-law wife?

    Like

    1. Trial of Passion is a well-written book in my opinion, Neeru. It’s the start of a great series, and I think Arthur Beauchamp is a well-drawn character. As for common-law marriage, there are some places that allow people who have lived together as spouses without a legal wedding for a certain amount of time to enjoy some of the same legal rights as legally married spouses have. Some US states allow this, and I believe Canada allows common-law spouses to have some benefits. I can’t say for other places.

      Like

  2. I expect you had me somewhere in your mind as you wrote this post. I have read all of your examples except for the Perry Mason case. The “truth” can be an elusive in the relationship between lawyer and client. You have cited fine examples of clients not telling their lawyers the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In my experience, the frustration with clients and the truth comes less from deliberate withholding of the truth and far more with clients telling me what they consider important. They do not want to bother me with information that is insignificant. I emphasize the need to be detailed so I can know the “whole” truth but is a rare case that I am not surprised by truth the client thought was not worth telling me about. I appreciate the examples you have cited are far more dramatic because of the deliberate nature of the lack of truth.

    As to Neeru’s question on common law. In Saskatchewan and much of Canada if you cohabit with someone (opposite or same sex) for a period of time, 1-2 years depending on the jurisdiction, you are spouses with all the rights and obligations of formally married couples. Discussing what cohabit means is not always straightforward.

    Like

    1. Thanks, Bill – very much – for your insights into the lawyer/client relationship. You’re right, of course, that there’s a difference between the client deliberately hiding something from a lawyer, and the client omitting something that doesn’t seem important, or doesn’t seem worth bothering the lawyer. It’s best if the client lets the lawyer be the judge of what matters and what doesn’t. And yes, I’d imagine that fiction cases of deliberately not telling everything are more dramatic than what usually happens. Still it must be frustrating trying to put a case together for client who’s decided that something or other isn’t worth discussing.

      Thanks also for the input on common-law marriage in Canada. I appreciate your filling in that gap.

      Like

  3. Common-law marriages were abolished in Scotland fairly recently, I think because civil partnerships were legalised for those who didn’t wish to marry, and they were seen to do away with the need for common-law marriages. I really must read Perry Mason sometime – a real omission in my vintage adventures!

    Like

    1. Thanks, FictionFan, for adding that in about Scotland. I didn’t know what the law is, and I think it’s interesting how civil partnerships have changed the legal landscape for partners. As for Perry Mason, I think the cases he gets involved with can be really interesting. The stories are of their day, so need to be taken in that way, but still… I’ll be interested in your reaction if/when you get to one of them.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I read a modern crime novel which was about trying to free an innocent woman who’d been charged with murder. (I wont give details as I don’t want to spoiler). But the twist was that she had done it, and I actually was rather disappointed in that! When the explanation for something is simply ‘X lied’ I feel I was expecting more. Anyway, she certainly didn’t tell the truth to her lawyer, or to anyone else!

    Like

    1. Oh, that is interesting, Moira! It reminds me of another novel I read where a very similar thing happened. I think it’s much harder to create a story where so-and-so turns out to be guilty, but didn’t outright lie. Rather, the guilty person ‘dances around’ things. In your case, you’re absolutely right; that person couldn’t have told the truth to the lawyer!

      Like

What's your view?