My Clients, the Liars
lesswrong.com
lesswrong.com
I can't help but reflect on all the media on romantic relationships, where so often the root problem is an inability to tell the other person what you really want and need.
It's all fascinating stuff because like this author states up front - whoever it might be often would be in a more competitive or better negotiating position if they would just be honest.
There's a flip side: you share your budget with someone, one which is a true budget (i.e. where options that exceed the limit will be ipso facto dismissed and those that fall under the limit will considered), and you later get mystifying utterances from the other participant in that past discussion that could only make sense if the discussion had not occurred.
It's like, "When I said my budget was $X, what did you think that meant?"
(It would be one thing for them to decide you're lying and to state that belief as some sort of preface to an option/recommendation/whatever that clearly doesn't fall within the agreed limits. It's another to decide that you're lying and then just proceed as if everyone is working from a shared understanding/agreement by all involved about what's in the person's head and there are no conflicts. Imagine if I told you that I don't like chocolate ice cream, and then you show up to the party with chocolate ice cream and an expectation that I will eat it, not because you forgot about my distaste for it, but because you just, like, decided that actually I do like chocolate ice cream.)
people tell the truth until it's abused, then just stop. cars follow at safe paces until they get cut off by reckless drivers. whole hours of traffic is caused by a single guilty driver who serves into the exit lane.
basically, people are dealing with a ghost. you have one person suddenly stop and now there's a permanent kink in the behavior of the traffic.
Then it would not be unusual to say you don't really like it, but still be pleased they have some available.
Communication isn't just about what you say, but also what is implied, and that is culturally dependent.
If a lot of other people lie about their budget, then I have to assume you might be truthful, or might be exaggerating it. It doesn't make sense for me to assume you're definitely being truthful unless I know you well enough to know you're not like everyone else, and are more truthful than average.
It's not just about lying, a lot of buyers genuinely aren't sure about their budget because it really is a partially subjective decision of tradeoffs. "My budget is $400k max" "here's this amazing $405k house" "oh wow, ok I guess i my budget was actually $405k and I didn't realize it" is a common outcome!
Or they're even aware of this dynamic, and keeping the budget artificially lower at first is intentional to help control costs, knowing it's easy to let the budget gradually balloon as the process goes on but hard to rein it back in.
But then the realtor has the opposite incentive. Buyers and sellers have an incentive to get the best price they respectively can, but do not necessarily have any incentive to complete the deal quickly. Some do but some really would be fine shopping around for a year.
This is awful for the realtor, because the price variation isn't likely to be that much relative to the realtor's commission -- so the realtor is incentivized to not worry about the price and mainly worry about making the sale happen at all, and as soon as possible. A realtor who is too respectful of the claimed budget will be punished by the market. Making sales happen at all can be hard. Sellers don't really want to settle for the insanely low prices in this garbage market, and buyers don't really want to have to settle for the insanely high prices in this ridiculous market, but they have to meet in the middle somewhere, and therein lies the art of the deal: a relentless focus on Getting It Done, on Sooner is Always better then Later, and on It Ain't Over Till It's Over.
If you understand this all realtor and similar dealmaker behavior suddenly makes perfect sense.
Except of course for motivated buyers/sellers, which are just like random manna from heaven from the point of view of of the market... but underpriced listings and overbudgetted buyers tend to be snatched up off the market very quickly, often by the first counterpart that sees them, so most of the market's energy has to be spent on the great mass of hesitant buyers and sellers who are working to convince themselves that they can manage to live with the prices they must compromise to accept. (This is also why if you're looking for a deal, you have to get notified of brand new listings every day and immediately jump on any gems.)
Exaggerating on resumes is similar. At a recent job I had a manager who expected quite a bit of exaggeration on resumes, to the point that I realized I've probably been hurting myself in the past by being too modest -- at least for hiring managers with a similarly jaded view.
> Imagine if I told you that I don't like chocolate ice cream, and then you show up to the party with chocolate ice cream and an expectation that I will eat it, not because you forgot about my distaste for it, but because you just, like, decided that actually I do like chocolate ice cream
I didn't say it didn't make sense. Thieves are something else that exists. Their behavior makes sense. But that's not the point. The point is that it's shitty.
Just sold my high-end home myself as a private fuck you to brokers—-and was materially lied to by the buyer’s agent.
"Is there anything the court would like to review to reconsider?"
A great article by a great public defender.
And yet someone has a bad day, or a change of heart, or ate a tasty taco for lunch, or just fell in love, and lives are ruined or saved.
I'm trying to touch base from a few months back about a post you replied to about a start-up ISP.
I have updated my contact info if you still want to chat.
There is a kernel of an exception that is almost not worth mentioning. The Rules of Professional
Conduct 3.3 obligates me with the duty of candor. I am not allowed to present evidence that I “know”
is false, which encompasses witness testimony. Some jurisdictions make exceptions to this rule for
defendants testifying in their criminal trial (correctly, IMO) but not all. So assuming that a
client truthfully confesses to me, assuming we go to trial, assuming they decide to testify, and
assuming I “know” they’re going to lie, then yes, this could indeed spawn a very awkward situation
where I’m forced to withdraw in the middle of proceedings.Remember that perjury is also a crime and you’re not “allowed” to commit perjury just because you’re testifying in your own defense (which is your choice).
If you’re actually guilty, your defense is supposed to challenge the validity of the evidence the prosecution is using to convict you. Not lie to the court and hope your lies are more convincing than the prosecution’s evidence.
Ideally yes, but prosecution (and the entire process leading to arrest) lies and breaks the law and takes advantage in every way possible. It's a very dishonest process to try to be honest against.
If you're guilty, the system is not designed to protect you, and there's no reason why it should permit the guilty to commit perjury out of some desire to balance out (?) the fact that the prosecution and police sometimes lie as well.
What is a scenario where an innocent person needs to be allowed to lie to present an effective defense?
The purpose of the justice system should not be to give guilty people the best chance to stay out of prison.
Yes, if you're guilty, lying may be your best defense. That doesn't mean the justice system should encourage it! If you're guilty, the justice systems want you to go to jail. All the protections exist to protect innocent people.
You know, it would be terrible if I was found guilty of willful copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which carries "A fine of not more than $500,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, for the first offense"[1]. If I had committed such a terrible act as torrenting seven movies, the insult to my conscience would surely move me to accept the felony penalties with civic stoicism - after such twisted malice from myself, the additional moral consequences of pleading "Not Guilty" would be too great to bear.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...
I'm not expressing an opinion on whether throwing someone in jail for torrenting movies is the right moral outcome. What I am saying is that a system which officially says "Yes, lying in court is legally permissible as long as you're lying about something related to a bullshit law" is not exactly sustainable.
I think the DMCA is a stupid and unfair law. The mafia probably thinks RICO is a stupid and unfair law. Someone who is a habitual drunk driver (but is convinced they can 'handle their liquor' better than the general public) probably thinks drunk driving laws are stupid and unfair. What of it?
But he seems like an odd person [1] and I wonder what might be atypical about his experiences? It would be interesting to read the experiences of other public defenders. It’s their job to look for problems.
[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4rsRuNaE4uJrnYeTQ/defunding-...
Regardless of any public defender's opinion, I am inclined to not fully respect opinions of people who are deeply embedded in the thing they have an opinion about, especially if it's in defense of the thing they're deeply embedded in. Humans lose perspective very easily, and especially when their identity is wrapped up in it.
Yes, it's possible that insiders might have a biased view. However, in general, I do respect the opinions of people who have had experiences and write about them more than the comments of random internet strangers who, as far as I know, have no experience.
This interpretation of 'eleven magic words' also suggests it matters: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33471299
'I'm sorry your honor, I have to withdraw from this matter because my client, who is a bit dim, has just told me at the lunch break that he totally did the thing, and also that he's going to lie his ass off about it when he gets up in the witness box in just a minute'
But the next time you hear a lawyer withdraw because they're 'forensically embarrassed', you'll know what happened
And then you shot her, correct?!
Answer: No I did not shoot her! I never did that.
And your lawyer knows it is a lie that you indeed did shoot her, it could be problematic at that point, depending on some jurisdiction.
I guess it depends if you think an effective defense should allow the guilty to go free?
But the fact we're debating how open defence lawyers are supposed to be and there is jurisdictional variation is a good indication of why criminals might feel they're best served lying to their defence lawyer, and lying as elaborately as possible rather than just avoiding confessing. The potential consequences of telling the truth are much worse than merely having your public defender think you're a fool. Plus if you're intending to test whether your denials are believable before you use them in court, you won't get a better opportunity than a privilege-protected conversation with someone who's seen a lot of excuses...
Say someone says to their lawyer they shot the person but really they are covering for their wife even to mthe lawyer. The lawyer then hears them say in court they didn’t shoot (the truth) but the lawyer just knows they are saying something different now to what they said before. It could be that.
I'm not the author of the post referred to here, but I suspect that 'guilty' was intended to be read as 'actually committed the crime'.
To be clear, I support the principle that it is the acquittal of a perpetrator is far less of a miscarriage of justice than is the conviction of someone other than the perpetrator.
No its not, holy shit.
Lying to your lawyer is a terrible idea. The lawyer is there to HELP YOU and present an effective defense. If you lie to the lawyer, the lawyer works with a different set of baseline arguments for your defense. If the lie is revealed, the defense is broken, it doesn't matter anymore. Months of work tossed out the window, nobody trusts the defendant anymore, and the lawyer needs to figure out damage control rather than actually defending you.
Repeat. If anyone finds out you lied, you are FUCKED. Trust goes out the window, Judge thinks you're a unrepentant idiot, most possibility of leniency in the case you are considered guilty is dropped.
It's literally one of the worst things you can do at trial.
There is zero reason to lie to your lawyer, all you do is make them less prepared in their defense.
> It’s true, a client can show me where they buried their dozen murder victims and I wouldn’t be allowed to tell a soul, even if an innocent person is sitting in prison for their crimes.
At least in Alabama (for no specific reason other than it was the first hit I found):
> RULE 3.3: CANDOR TOWARDS THE TRIBUNAL
> (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
> (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client
Seems to me that knowing that your client is materially guilty and an innocent person has been convicted for their crimes is "assisting a criminal or fraudulent act" by your client.
Or if you really think you can lie your way to acquittal, then you can successfully convince your lawyer of your lie. If your lawyer can see through your bullshit as easily as the examples he gives, you're not going to fool the court.
That said they also say here it depends on the jurisdiction so in some jurisdictions it won't matter that you know if your client is lying.
hmm - potentially can you start a case in jurisdiction 1 where rules are a certain way and then get case moved to a different jurisdiction where it is different? Seems unlikely and probably not something competent lawyer would allow - but still...
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/my-clients-the-liars
Other HN discussion of Yassine Meskhout's writing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33462658
Their experience was not exactly like the author's. Their clients lied to them, yes. But they were very competent, knew every loophole and detail of the legal machinery, having experienced all of it before and shared their knowledge with like-minded individuals while in jail. They were afraid their lawyers weren't up to the task.
I remember an ACLU email in my inbox about the Juwan Wickware case: https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/only-america-1.... It was trying to drum up outrage about a young man who attacked a pizza delivery driver as part of a coordinated robbery. One of the members of Wickware’s party ended up killing the driver in front of his wife and kids (who were in the car). When I dug up details about the case, I thought “you’d think they’d have picked a more sympathetic case to make their point.” But the fact is that those are few and far between.
In security, "covert tests" that replicate rare events (like attempting to sneak a gun through a checkpoint) more frequently, seem to increase the chances of success in detecting real threats [0]. If only we could do the same for our legal system.
[0]: https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2013/november/nov4...
The hard part of consulting (not management consulting like McKinsey or KPMG, I mean legitimate technical consulting) is figuring out what the customer actually wants and then finding a way to describe what you plan to do that satisfies what they claim is their need in a way they will understand and be glad for.
I mean, isn’t it very human ?
How to help the client avoid this thinking ? Even more so when you are defending people who have no knowledge of how the system even functions ?
"Three people you should never lie to: your doctor, your accountant, and your attorney."
Pedant's corner: proselytizing doesn't mean preaching. It means someone is trying to convert you to their religion. This:
"Marcel spent our entire first meeting trying to convert me to his religion his innocence to me."
Doesn't parse.
A little outrageous (in a fun way) but perfectly reasonable choice in making the writing more vivid. It implies that Marcel's theory of innocence is like a religion. That might be an intentional implication whose subtlety escaped you, if the author intended that. Or it could be that the author didn't intend that and just misused the word. I would give the author some benefit of doubt here based on their command of language displayed.
"Marcel spent our entire first meeting trying to convert me over to his religion-like faith in his own innocence"
Would be a much more appropriate way to render it than the intentionally obtuse way you chose
I think I felt strongly enough to comment here simply because I really enjoy seeing fun usages of language like this so I hate to see them smeared as all being accidental screwups, and the only good writing to be really literal writing. (at the same time it is entirely possible this case is unintentional)
I "rendered" as you say the author's sentence by replacing the word "prosyletizing" with its meaning:
"Marcel spent our entire first meeting [prosyletizing] his innocence to me." -->
"Marcel spent our entire first meeting [trying to convert me to his religion] his innocence to me."
Which is a straightforward substitution and so much easier to justify than your version.
A valid criticism could be about my use of the word "me" between "convert" and "his religion" which is extraneous. Didn't notice that though, while playing devil's advocate, did we now?
Btw the rest of the author's writing is also crap, afaic.
Better Call Saul is about a lawyer.
Also, I wonder if the author really does the best they can. We only have their word for it, and... well, from what I can read on the internet, the criminal justice system in the USA isn't that great, so to speak.
These people lie because they know they did it but are trying to avoid the consequences since they got caught, their first instinct is to convince anyone who will talk to them, and after the first few times where that doesn't work out, they finally get the lesson to only talk to their lawyer. But, they carried forward the same behavior.
Now instead of trying to convince the people before, they're now trying to convince the lawyer that they weren't even there, they were asleep even. But, they live with other people who don't share their alibi, they made a call using their phone just 15 minutes before the crime took place, or cite the classic SODDI when that all fails, like Marcel and Kyle.
Sometimes people are irrational, forgetful, and however unfathomably unlikely: stupid. Sometimes people cite "experience" to lead their path through life, but really they mean "familiarity" with the situation, they really haven't learned anything.
I'll use the authors own thoughts here to affirm:
> No, the lying doesn't come from a lack of trust but rather a manipulation attempt. Their overriding goal is to get off the charges no matter what it takes, so they're willing to flip through and latch onto whatever narrative helps them get there. They basically want me to be a ventriloquist and use me to launder their talking points because it's more believable coming from me. Of course as I pointed out, they don't really think the plan all the way through.
Regarding the US justice system, I am thankful every time I hear about it that I am not subject to it.
The system is not built on forgiveness. It will punish you fully regardless the severity of your actual crime.
The fact that the author has no sympathy nor understanding of this, leads me to believe that they're not doing the job for the right reasons.
This is not a fact, this is you twisting the content of this post into a very badly formed representation of the author.
> But their client has to lie, even if they're not fully guilty of the crime
Client does not need to confess to their lawyer, they do however need to provide the lawyer with enough information, most importantly with evidence or a pathway to it, that may lead to an innocent or non-liable verdict. Client can misunderstand this position all they want, does not matter.
While he might not like it because it makes his job difficult, he should nonetheless understand it and at least pretend to sympathize on some level.
Hard disagree. The clients described here, and in their other piece, are clearly the product of disadvantaged backgrounds. If these individuals were capable of having these kind of insights by themselves, they would simply not be sitting in front of a lawyer. It is precisely the mocking that I am pointing as an issue, because the mocking shows an absence of empathy. A good, or even competent, public defender needs to understand the mindset of their client. Clients behave in ways that appear to us, as lawyers or readers of HN, to be bizarrely self-destructive.
And that mocking disrespect leads to this absolute blinder of a claim:
>His attitude is a bit unprofessional, but he appears to be putting in an honest attempt at securing the best outcome for his clients.
>FTA: Every case I get requires me to deploy a microscope and retrace the cops’ steps to see if they fucked up somehow (spoiler: they haven’t).
Wow. Cops fuck up all the time. Sometimes deliberately. Sometimes in ways that kill people. Sometimes, extremely rarely, there are attempts to hold them accountable for that. But day-in, day-out, cops try to do their job, and that job is "Put somebody behind bars". If you believe that the police's job is to "put the guilty party behind bars" then you haven't worked in the criminal justice system, or known someone who has.
It takes a committed public defender to go over the evidence and review it. Four members of the police will happily take the stand and describe what they have agreed amongst themselves is what happened, only to have video evidence that a public defender took the time to look at, absolutely refute what they said. Cops routinely perjure themselves. And is any action taken against them? Surely blatant perjury is grounds for some kind of disciplinary action? Disqualification and banning from ever being police again, even? Nope. Routine, day-in, day-out behavior by the police.
Are there defendants who absolutely did the crime? Certainly. Do they try to get out of it in the stupidest ways? Absolutely. Do they do it in ways that guarantee themselves jail time, when a remorseful attitude would get them probation? All the time. And is it the job of the public defender, themselves underpaid, to deal with this behavior and yet achieve the best outcome? Yes, that is literally the job. All public defenders are exasperated by many of their clients. Mocking them online crosses the line.
>FTA (comments by author): No, the lying doesn't come from a lack of trust but rather a manipulation attempt.
The claim here is that these are evil, manipulative people, and therefore it is ok to mock them and they get what they deserve. And certainly, many of them are psychopaths and narcissist, just like the ones that work at my company, CEOs around the world, surgeons, etc. But in fact many of them are just broken people. People who have been abused by actual psychopaths, or indeed just other broken people. People who don't experience a just world, with laws that are followed; People who essentially live in a lawless world, where rules of protection don't apply to them; where even people in uniform who visibly represent "lawful society" violate these laws with impunity.
Some of those behind bars need to stay there forever. The majority need help. Of course the help they need is a supportive environment, education and opportunities, which is tremendously unlikely. You could (and many rich white men do) argue it's just better for the rest of us to just incarcerate them than it is to have them come back out into the same broken society and reoffend. It's easy to believe that all immigrants are murderers, all muslims are terrorists, as demonstrably many people do, when told so by rich white men.
And in such a society, it's easy to read an article such as this, and laugh at the stupidity of poor people. Just be aware that's what you're doing.
Then again, those are private lawyers and not cheap public defenders. You get what you pay for, I guess.