“If necessary, I might do some study in terms of this,” Zhang acknowledged.
“A trained lawyer would defend you much better than you could represent yourself,” Altman replied. “I strongly urge you not to represent yourself. ... I’ve been a lawyer for a very long time and I think this is a very bad decision.”
The Herald has more here.
One interesting issue that is happening more and more is a reporter reporting on overhearing a conversation between lawyer and client in the court. The Herald reported on such a conversation here calling it an "intense heart-to-heart."
The issue of reporters reporting on overheard attorney/client communications is usually on the lawyer. Be more careful. But this one is tacky. The reporter didn't just call the conversation a heart to heart. The reporter actually quoted the conversation wherein counsel told the client that their communications would be private. That reporter knew s/he was invading the space of a private conversation, and didn't care. And effectively tells us as much in the story.
ReplyDeleteI hope the reporter enjoyed the dopamine rush from reporting on that conversation. Because I can promise you the cost to be paid in the future -- in lost access, lost trust among those covered, lost credibility among readers and sources -- will be steep.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is certainly on the lawyer for failing to do what's necessary to secure the privacy of the conversation. But for the reporter essentially to eavesdrop on, and then report, a private conversation of dubious news value, merely for the thrill of its novelty, is tremendously shortsighted. Unethical? Perhaps not, strictly speaking. But a damned petty exercise for certain.
I was a newsman for about 13 years before I became a lawyer. Over those I covered several different insular, even closed communities -- the cops, the military, the courts. Access for stories that matter -- being in place to publish what really demands to be reported, what changes lives, what reforms institutions -- comes from building relationships and weighing all the equities every day. Excepting perhaps in the middle school cafeteria, just because you learn a secret, that doesn't necessarily make it a secret worth telling. "Because I could," is rarely reason enough.
I think you are all overreacting. Details matter. Here is the portion of the article in question:
ReplyDelete"In the moments before the status hearing, Zhang’s public defenders seemed to beseech their client to cooperate with their efforts to represent her.
'We would like to meet with you to talk to you more,' attorney Kristy Militello told Zhang. 'What you tell us is private.'
The intense heart-to-heart was overhead by Miami Herald reporters.
Militello then told the judge that Zhang has been 'refusing' to meet with her defense team."
That's it.
The only part of any conversation reported was the public defender telling the defendant that communications would be confidential. **There is no reporting of any response by the defendant to the public defender,** which would be the portion of the conversation which would be much different, as the defendant would have an expectation of privacy.
The initial statement of the public defender simply covering the basics of attorney client privilege is entirely banal. The exact same comment could have been made by the judge. Who cares they reported on this warning? Do you think the public defender got back to their office, read the article, and felt totally violated? We all know any public defender would say the same thing.
Also, I hardly think this was a situation of a "dopamine rush" from reporting on the initial warning of the public defender. The point of quoting that portion of the conversation was simply to explain how intransigent the defendant was in insisting on self representation. This gives valuable context to the defendant's later statements to the judge refusing the public defender. My guess is the reporters didnt even realize anyone might feel violated...but here on the web outrage is the big thing.
I wouldn't say I'm outraged. And I don't think my comment fairly can be read that way.
ReplyDeleteThe key word in the passage is "overheard." And what was overheard? A "heart-to-heart" the participants clearly expected - perhaps not justifiably given the circumstances - to be private. As you point out, the weight of the conversation was slight. Hence my view that news value hardly justifies reporter's actions.
I know we live in a world where anyone with a smartphone can report events and call it news. But I agree with Kuntz, there are ethics in journalism and the reporter here violated them. If the reporter had purloined a letter from the attorney (even a public defender)to the client labeled as confidential and reported on what the attorney said in the letter, no matter how basic, that would have been unethical. No difference here.
ReplyDeleteSimple disagreement isn't outrage. Don't be so sensitive.
ReplyDeleteBut I get what 6:55 is trying to say. Basically, "no hard, no foul."
To my friends giving us the lecture on ethics in journalism, I will cite to one key fact and give you the last word if you think one is needed:
ReplyDeleteNOT A SINGLE WORD THE DEFENDANT SAID TO THE PUBLIC DEFENDER WAS REPORTED.