posted
The instant a wild animal is brought under the control of a person so that actual possession is practically inevitable, a vested property in it accrues to him which cannot be divested by another's interfering and killing it.
Max pursued the fox to its exhaustion. The chase brought the animal into control.
Max's fox.
[ January 18, 2007, 06:48 AM: Message edited by: Lad Boy ]
From: Washington DC | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, this happened in colonial times (or around the time of the Revolution) The land was just unowned forest.
Sam did get the fox. The court ruled that if Max had injured the fox, then he would have had a proprietary interest. But because he didn't, he had no legal claim.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, this wasn't an actual court case but a hypothetical from my Ethics class.
As you know (or should know) Lawyers have the duty to keep what is said to them in strictest confidence. The main exception is this:
(a) A lawyer shall not reveal confidential information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in paragraph (b).
(b) A lawyer may reveal such information:
(1) to prevent the commission of a criminal or fraudulent act that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm, or in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another, or to prevent the wrongful execution or incarceration of another;
So the hypothetical goes like this:
A client of yours comes to you and says that her boyfriend was arrested for being in a barroom fight. She asks you to go help him. In the police station, he tells you that he is HIV positive. He wants to know if that would change the charges against him for the fight. He also tells you that he hasn't told anyone yet.
The question: Do you tell his girlfriend - your client about his HIV status?
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm much more interested in knowing how HIV status could change criminal charges for someone, but the way I would interpret this scenario is that nondisclosure of HIV status in a relationship is neither a criminal nor a fraudulent act. It's certainly not a crime to have consenting, unprotected sex.
So, while unprotected sex with this man would/could result in your client contracting HIV, I don't think you could justify telling her. A case could be made that nondisclosure of HIV status is fraudulent, but I think that gets into invasion of medical privacy.
Sucks, but I think you have to be quiet.
-------------------- White. A blank page or canvas. His favorite. So... many... possibilities.
From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kid Prime: I'm much more interested in knowing how HIV status could change criminal charges for someone, but the way I would interpret this scenario is that nondisclosure of HIV status in a relationship is neither a criminal nor a fraudulent act. It's certainly not a crime to have consenting, unprotected sex.
In a sense, that was his question. It was put in there to make sure that you understood that he was telling you (the lawyer) this in relation to representation.
A further question is whether this guy is a client of yours (you haven't agreed to represent him yet) and whether the confidentiality duty still attaches.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Should the lawyer tell the girlfriend? I'd say yes, after discussing it with the barroom brawler. Maybe the lawyer can convince the guy to tell her himself. Regardless, the woman should be informed, because HIV could cause substantial bodily harm. (Does consensual sex depend on both parties being fully informed?)
I'm not sure if the fact that he hasn't formally accepted the man as a client makes a difference in this case. Does that mean you can tell a lawyer stuff, then he can decide to not take you as a client and rat you out? If that's the case, shouldn't the guy be informed first that anything he says won't be confidential until he is a client?
posted
I think the lawyer would first advise the client that he could be charged with spreading HIV if he didn't tell her, and that he, the lawyer, would be ethically bound to tell her if he didn't.
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kid Prime: I'm still very concerned with this "charged with spreading HIV" stuff.
From what I've read, it is mainly about someone with HIV knowingly, deliberately spreading it to others.
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have all made the assumption that he and his girlfriend are having sex. They may or may not be. You haven't asked that question yet.
FC, what would you do if after discussing it with him, he still said "no don't tell her"?
And yes the confidentiality would hold even if you didn't take him as a client.
TD,
Thanks for the article & statute. From a reading of the statute, it would seem that even a person, who disclosed his/her HIV positive status, could be found guilty under this law even if his/her partner consents to sex & knows the HIV status. For example. Say there is a couple. He's is HIV positive. She knows and still has unprotected sex with him. Her mom finds out and charges him with assault. The statute is under the criminal code, so the victim doesn't have to be the one to charge him.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.: From a reading of the statute, it would seem that even a person, who disclosed his/her HIV positive status, could be found guilty under this law even if his/her partner consents to sex & knows the HIV status. For example. Say there is a couple. He's is HIV positive. She knows and still has unprotected sex with him. Her mom finds out and charges him with assault. The statute is under the criminal code, so the victim doesn't have to be the one to charge him.
Well, why don't we throw them all in a leper colony and be done with it?
This really, REALLY disturbs me.
-------------------- White. A blank page or canvas. His favorite. So... many... possibilities.
From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.: From a reading of the statute, it would seem that even a person, who disclosed his/her HIV positive status, could be found guilty under this law even if his/her partner consents to sex & knows the HIV status. For example. Say there is a couple. He's is HIV positive. She knows and still has unprotected sex with him. Her mom finds out and charges him with assault. The statute is under the criminal code, so the victim doesn't have to be the one to charge him.
Well, why don't we throw them all in a leper colony and be done with it?
This really, REALLY disturbs me.
I don't see too many prosecutions of HIV positive people, who have sex after disclosing their status to their partner, as actually happening. I was just raising it as a possibility given a plain reading of the statute.
I think the statute is for those people who know their HIV status and have unprotected sex without disclosing their HIV Status.
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Feel free to keep talking about the HIV hypothetical (or any of the cases)
This also involves the lawyer's duty of confidentiality (see above), but is not a hypothetical.
The client was charged with one killing but revealed to the lawyer the location of two other bodies. After checking to be sure the bodies were there, the attorney tried, unsuccessfully, to use this information as part of a plea bargain. Meanwhile, the attorney was contacted by the distraught father of one of these victims, begging for information about the fate of his child. Believing that forensic evidence available from the remains might tend to further incriminate the client, he refused to acknowledge any information about other potential victims.
(The actual case involved serial killer/rapist Robert Garrow and attorneys Frank Armani and Francis Beige)
Should the lawyer reveal the location of the additional bodies?
-------------------- Five billion years from now the Sun will go nova and obliterate the Earth. Don't sweat the small stuff!
From: Boston | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quislet, Esq.: FC, what would you do if after discussing it with him, he still said "no don't tell her"?
I would still tell her, but that's partly based on the bodily harm thing and partly thinking that I would want to know if a sexual partner were HIV positive. Now if there's no sex involved, it's a different story. I assumed.
However, thinking about it further, where does the "telling" stop? What if, six months later, the lawyer sees this guy with a different girl and learns that they're living together - assume a sexual relationship - does he tell her? It could get to be like people - or cops - identifying a child molester who's moving into the neighbourhood, or people who publish, vigilante-style, information like that. I'm not entirely comfortable (or clear) on that; where are the limits? What about people with TB? The clap?
Was there a consensus in your class? Or is there a specific guideline for lawyers beyond what you posted about confidentiality?
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
