Legion World Forums LEGION OUTPOST Mission Monitor Board Quislet's Super Law Firm...of Space!

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.

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.

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?

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?

well, when we discussed it in class, the rule we used said "Imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm". So the discussion went to whether HIV infection constituted an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. And as I said, there is nothing in the hypothetical that states that they are engaged in a sexual relationship. The concensus in the class was to not tell her, while encouraging him to tell her.

I remember this hypotheical because the next class this one really wierd student (I called her "Spooky") asked to return to the hyopthetical and said "I am simply aghast that no one would tell. HIV is a serious disease..." Her using "aghast" really stuck with me.

Re: the Garow case - the lawyer should not reveal the information about the other two bodies, based on those guidelines. No one is in physical danger because of this information and the revelation could (further) incriminate his client.

But the lawyer must have revealed the information at some point since you know about it?

Well, they knew that the attorneys knew about the other two bodies because the attorneys were trying to use the information as part of a plea bargain.

I did find a site that talks about the case and gives a detailed description of what the attorneys did Robert Garrow

Either the client (Garrow) eventually gave them permission or after his death, the privilege ended.

OK here is another family law case.

Note: A child born to a married woman is presumed to be a child of the marriage. Under California state law, this presumption could not be rebutted as long as the husband was not impotent or sterile.


On May 9, 1976, in Las Vegas, Nevada, Carole D., an international model, and Gerald D., a top executive in a French oil company, were married. The couple established a home in Playa del Rey, California, in which they resided as husband and wife when one or the other was not out of the country on business. In the summer of 1978, Carole became involved in an adulterous affair with a neighbor, Michael H. In September 1980, she conceived a child, Victoria D., who was born on May 11, 1981. Gerald was listed as father on the birth certificate and has always held Victoria out to the world as his daughter. Soon after delivery of the child, however, Carole informed Michael that she believed he might be the father.

In the first three years of her life, Victoria remained always with Carole, but found herself within a variety of quasifamily units. In October 1981, Gerald moved to New York City to pursue his business interests, but Carole chose to remain in California. At the end of that month, Carole and Michael had blood tests of themselves and Victoria, which showed a 98.07% probability that Michael was Victoria's father. In January 1982, Carole visited Michael in St. Thomas, where his primary business interests were based. There Michael held Victoria out as his child. In March, however, Carole left Michael and returned to California, where she took up residence with yet another man, Scott K. Later that spring, and again in the summer, Carole and Victoria spent time with Gerald in New York City, as well as on vacation in Europe. In the fall, they returned to Scott in California.

In May 1983, Carole filed a motion for summary judgment. During this period, from March through July 1983, Carole was again living with Gerald in New York. In August, however, she returned to California, became involved once again with Michael,...

For the ensuing eight months, when Michael was not in St. Thomas he lived with Carole and Victoria in Carole's apartment in Los Angeles and held Victoria out as his daughter. In April 1984, Carole and Michael signed a stipulation that Michael was Victoria's natural father. Carole left Michael the next month, however, and instructed her attorneys not to file the stipulation. In June 1984, Carole reconciled with Gerald and joined him in New York, where they now live with Victoria and two other children since born into the marriage.


Question: Should Michael be granted visitation rights?

no, unless Carole and Gerald both agree to offer them.

he presumably knew he was involved with a married woman at a time when he, she and her husband were all California residents. Therefore, the original California law applies.

California law gives Michael no standing, as Garald is clearly not sterile or impotent, regardless of whether the stipulation was drafted, filed or not.

Wherever any of the three adults reside, the child was conceived in California at a time when Carole was married to Gerald, and thus this is the law that applies to Victoria's legal parentage.

If Michael wants to have visitation rights to children he has sired with women married to other men, he should choose to live in a state/nation with laws that grant him such rights beforehand.

Mr. Quislet, Esq. I wonder if I might break up your most interesting discussion of legal theory for a moment in order to obtain your legal opinion on a matter that has recently come to my attention?

Gladys, a sentient disco ball employed by the Security Office, was recently shall we say... "involved with" Lardlad during one of his frequent binge drinking episodes.

Now being as Sentient Disco Balls, as a species, communicate via pulsed light bursts, and humans as a species communicate via sound, communications between the two species are difficult at best.

Gladys, on three separate occasions, has requested that the security office provide her with a translation device. All three requests have been ignored.

I would like you to interview Gladys, in the presence of a translation robot, in order to determine whether or not she was a willing participent in Lardlad's Drunken Debauchery.

While I would gladly sit down and discuss the matter with Gladys, I would have you know that such cases do not always resolve upon the statements of just one of the parties involved.

I TOLD YOU! She wants pickles and Kahlua!
Sexual Harrassment my glorious red arse...Everyone knows of Gladys'...proclivitys.
Pickles! Kahlua! That is all!

*flies off in frustration*

Understood and accepted. However the fact that you are willing to make an effort to determine whether or not her participation was voluntary gives me hope that Legion World has not passed the point of no return in moral values.

Kent said basically what the Supreme Court said in Michael H v Gerald D

This one I am doing from memory.

Old Joe has a will drawn up in which he divides his property among several relatives and make s some specific bequest. At the time the will was written, Old Joe swore that there were people living in the trees on his property and hanging meat from them. Old Joe made other equally strange claims.

When Old Joe died, some of the relatives wanted to will declared invalid due to Old Joe not being of sound mind.

What say you?

A will is a legal document, presumably witnessed by someone who attests to Joe being of sound mind, yes?

Thus it seems incumbent upon the realtives seeking a change to (1) impeach the characxter of the witness and (2) prove that Joe's strange claims were not true.

As the trees are the only example at hand... were the trees roadside, or in a wooded area? If the latter, occassional use by hunters could justify Joe's impression of such use (even if not exactly as he believed).

Presumably only a portion of the realtives want the will changed. Assuming the pro-invalidation relatives produce a strong case, the pro-will relatives should also be able to rebutt those claims.

If the will itself makes sense, it should not be declared invalid based on Joe's exotic beliefs.

If the specific bequest were to leave the meat in the trees to somebody, there might be a problem.

(Maybe some of his sneaky relatives were hiding in the trees and hanging meat to befuddle him, in preparation for a will contest.)

FC stated just like the court did. Basically, Joe did know what was his property and he was devising it in a proper manner. Therefore, for purposes of the will, he was of sound mind.

And the witnesses of the will only testify that the testator signed the will and was not coerced into signing. They don't testify to the soundness of the testator's mind.

A new case for you from the world of torts. (And I don't mean the yummy kind you eat)

Battery is the intentional touching of another that is harmful or offensive.

Nationally known anti-smoking advocate Randy J Reynolds was at radio station WONK to be interviewed by Joe Opinion for The Great American Smoke Out. Another WONK employee, B J O'Blowhard purposefully blew cigar smoke in Reynolds' face several times. Reynolds sues both O'Blowhard and WONK for battery.

What do you think?

Is there anything legally I can do to prevent people from the future from spying on me?

I suppose you could request a restraining order. However you would need to know the name of the person spying on you and serve him/her/it with notice of hearing for the restraining order.

Beyond that I suggest an aluminum foil helmet.

Dear Quis,

Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series is becoming too long...Is there anything we can do to make him clue it up soon?
Also my pizza took 35 minutes to arrive last night and it wasn't free, should I sue?

You could go all Misery on him, but legally there is nothing you could do to Mr. Jordan.

Regarding your pizza, did the restaurant you ordered it from make a promise of a delivery time and state that the compensation for failing to meet the delivery time would be a refund of the cost of the pizza? If so, you could file suit. However the cost of filing a suit might cost more than the pizza.

Since health officials have repeatedly concluded that smoking is hazardous, and so is second-hand smoke, I'd say Reynolds was correct in suing O'Blowhard. And since O'Blowhard was (1) an employee of WONK, (2) purposefully blowing smoke in the course of working for WONK, and (3) (adding in an assumption on my part here) based upon his name, his employment behavior conformed to the typical (especially morning) radio controversial/zany/hype mold, then I fully agree WONK is also liable...

UNLESS the company (A) had an employee policy fstipulating a code of conduct, (B) this policy was actively and uniformly enforced prior to the incident, (C)O'Blowhard was educated about this policy, AND (D) WONK initiated disciplanary proceedings against O'Blowhard for violations in writing prior to the commencement of Reynolds' suit... in that case, I would say that O'Blowhard should be responsible for WONK's share of the damages as well as his own.

I'd say O'Blowhard is liable but not WONK since O'Blowhard was acting on his own initiative and not in the performance of his job - he was not the one interviewing Joe Opinion.

WONK sends O'Blowhard to sensitivity training, to no effect, and all involved benefit from the publicity.