Basic Legal Ethics

Group Work
Primal Fear

Submitted To:
Atty. Amy Rose A. Soler-Rellin

Submitted By:
Osorio, Richard Bong
Villaruel, Joseph Carlo
Calo, Michael John
Flores, Kerven
Angot, Ladylou
Kho, Kevin
Garcia, Jed
Sedigo, Ephraim Jr.
Badayos, Mark Lawrence

Plot Summary: Primal Fear

The story revolves around a famous defense lawyer named Martin Vail who loves the
publicity that high profile cases give him and who chases defendants instead of ambulances.
The plot is centered in the murder trial for the death of the beloved Archbishop Rushman. The
state prosecutor in this case is Janet Venable who also happens to be Vails former lover.
Aaron Stampler, an altar boy, was arrested for running away from the crime scene with
blood all over his body and allegedly murdering the Archbishop. Upon seeing the news report of
Aarons arrest, Vail jumps at the opportunity and pursues the defendant offering to represent
him in the case pro bono.
Vail initially believes that Aaron is truly innocent and wanted to prove his case.His client
maintains that he suffers from amnesia and black-outs that make him unable to remember what
happened in the crime scene. In the course of the defense teams investigation, they come to
learn of other angles which can relate to the Archbishops murder. They discovered that
powerful leaders, including the States attorney John Shaughnessy, have lost millions of dollars
in investments due to the Archbishops refusal to develop certain lands in the vicinity of the
church. They also learned that the Archbishop has been receiving death threats. Far more
intriguing is the discovery of a videotape involving the Archbishop, two of his altar boys including
Aaron and a girl by the name of Linda. In the videotape, they found out that the Archbishop has
a habit of having the young ones perform sexual acts at his instruction.
When Vail confronts Aaron regarding the contents of the videotape, he breaks down and
suddenly transforms into a completely different person by the name of Roy who confesses to
the murder of the Archbishop. When his episode is over, Aaron's personality re-emerges and
appears to have no recollection of the personality switch. Molly Arrington,
the psychiatrist examining Aaron, is convinced that he suffers from multiple personality
disorder caused by years of abuse from his father and the Archbishop.
Vail knows that he cannot enter into a plea of insanity during an ongoing trial and that
introducing the videotape as evidence would give his client a motive for the murder which the
prosecution has been unable to establish. Still, this would also make the accused more
sympathetic to the jury. Vail then sends a copy of the videotape to Venable.
At the climax, Vail puts Aaron on the witness stand and questions him about his
relationship with the Archbishop. During cross-examination, after Venable questions him
intensively, Aaron switches into Roy in open court and attacks Venable, threatening to snap her
neck. He is subdued by courthouse marshals and rushed back to his holding cell.
The judge then dismisses the jury in favor of a bench trial and then finds Stampler not
guilty by reason of insanity, remanding him to a maximum security mental hospital.
In the final scene, Vail visits Stampler in his cell to tell him of the dismissal of his case. It
was then when Stampler confessed that he has been pretending to be insane the entire time.
Stunned and disillusioned at how he was so easily fooled and manipulated by his own client,
Vail walks away.

Ethical Dilemmas Observed:

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Atty. Martin Vail stole a tape from the crime scene, harassed a witness, mislead and
disrespected the judge hearing the case.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
Atty. Vail instructed his personal investigator to trespass into the residence of his client
without consent. His actions give the impression that Lawyers are willing to break the law so
long as they win the case which should not be the case.
Rule 2.03 - A Lawyer shall not do or, permit to be done any act primarily to solicit legal
business.
Atty. Vail permitted the writing of a cover story on his life as a lawyer for a famous
magazine. This is a blatant act of advertisement which lowers the standards of the legal
profession. A good advertisement of a lawyer is a well-established reputation.
Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the mass
media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business.
Atty. Vail, upon learning of the crime immediately proceeded to the detention center so
he could be the lawyer of Aaron. He sought the publicity which a high profile case like this
because its akin to an advertisement of his services. The more attention this case gets, the
more customers he will have in the future.
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict
but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses
capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is
cause for disciplinary action.
State Attorney John Shaughnessy said that he wanted the death penalty for the accused
and that Atty. Venable should do whatever it takes to convict Stampler. This strong belief in the
guilt of the accused despite no trial taking place yet is unethical because the primary duty of
every prosecutor is not to convict, but to see to it that justice is done.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession
Atty. Vail constantly commits ethical violations. He harasses witnesses, steals evidence
from the crime scene, accuses judges of bias and etc. His actions show a lack of respect for the
legal profession and to the legal process.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Atty. Martin Vail assured the judge and the court that he would not bring up insanity but
during the cross examination of the Psychiatrist, he kept asking questions that would lead to the
conclusion that his client was insane.

Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
Atty. Vail violated this rule when he caused the mistrial by bringing up the insanity of the
accused despite pleading otherwise. This is a clear abuse of court procedures to frustrate the
ends of justice because not only was there a mistrial it was apparent that no other prosecutor
would be willing to try the case which means Aaron Stampler would escape from punishment.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.
Martin Vail misbehaved in the court by harassing the witness, Shaughnessy, and in the
words of Judge Shoat, Vail used the court to wage personal vendettas and settle old scores with
the witness Shaughnessy. As a result, the judge held atty. Vail in contempt of court.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record
or have no materiality to the case.
Atty. Vaile alluded to the Judge hearing the case that she was unjust and impartial. He
even went as to say Should I just make out the check to you judge? implying that he needed to
bribe her so he can get justice.
Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a break or recess in
the trial, while the witness is still under examination.
Atty. Vail kept on signaling and gesturing Tommy Goodman who was being examined as
a witness at the time on how to proceed with his testimony.
Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to
present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.
Atty. Vail stole evidence, harassed witnesses, mislead the courts and other ethical
violations which are dishonest and should not be employed in order to attain the objectives of
his client.

DISHONESTY: VIOLATION OF RULE 1.01 AND RULE 19.01

Attorney Martin Vail, who is the defense attorney in the case of Aaron Stampler, has no
evidence to make some doubt in the judges mind. He investigated and as he was doing his
research, he stumbled upon an information that Stampler and his fellow altar boy Alex did a sex
video, which was directed by the Archbishop. Vail searched for the video in the Archbishops
apartment, found it, reproduced it and sent it to the prosecuting lawyer anonymously.
He violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which says, A lawyer
shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
processes. Also, in relation to that, he violated Rule 1.01 of the said Code which also says that,
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
He knows that the evidence is inadmissible as evidence because it is against the
Constitutional right of a person. Section 2, Article III of the Constitution states that, The right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and eects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or armation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
He is also guilty of violating Canon 19, specifically Rule 19.01 which states, A lawyer
shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not
present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceedings.
If I were the lawyer, I would do everything I can to defend my client in legal ways. As an
officer of the court, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the realization of speedy and efficient
administration of justice. They cant put justice into their own hands. The must respect the
processes and rules provided by the law to attain rightful justice. Also, it is well settled that we
cannot make use of the fruits of a poisonous tree. The evidence obtained against the
constitutional rights of a person is inadmissible. What he did is sending the copy anonymously
so that it can be used as evidence, not by him but by the prosecution.

Rule 10.01
A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he
mislead or allow the court to be mislead by any artifice.
Originally their defense was that the crime was committed by a third person that framed
Aaron Stampler. Halfway in the movie they believed Aaron Stampler to be insane because of
the fruitlessness of their original defense and the increasingly more believable diagnosis of
multiple personality disorder by the neurologist; they could not change their pleading mid-trial as
it was prohibited in the Rules of Court.
So what Martin Vail did was to have the neurologist as witness to testify of the formers
insanity against the orders of the court by arguing that he was setting up the basis for amnesia
which was neither his intent nor was it the effect ultimately achieved; which instead damaged
the case wherefore the judge has declared a mistrial. Thus the latter dismisses the jury who has
been exposed to another defense to a bench trial with a blind plea of not guilty by virtue of
insanity.
It is clear that Martin Vail violated Rule 10.01 for misleading the court through lying about
the neurologists testimonys purpose which he stated as establishing a medical basis for
amnesia but instead resulted in tainting the jury. There were other instances of violations of this
canon but this I believed to be more blatant as it was committed against the court and judge
directly.
If I were in Martins shoes, I should have had a background check on my client before
taking the case at hand immediately. He jumped in knowing that it would be a good publicity
stunt for him if he took it, sometimes people want to promote themselves on their alleged merits.
For me, it is not about winning but arriving at the truth through the judicious and steadfast
compliance of the Rules of Court and common sense.

Rule 6.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

In a conversation between State Attorney John Shaughnessy and Prosecutor Janet
Venable prior to the commencement of the murder case against Aaron Stampler, Shaughnessy
made strong and unbecoming remarks although in private. While Venable expressed her intent
to study the facts in order to come up with a strong case and pray for an appropriate judgment
from the court, Shaughnessy irresponsibly said that he wants the death penalty on Aaron
Stampler and to pull off whatever shenanigan just to make sure that Stampler be meted out with
the capital punishment.
Such remark of Shaughnessy unequivocally expresses a strong belief of Stamplers guilt
albeit premature. This is a breach of Rule 6.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
states that:
The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but
to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts of the concealment of witnesses
capable of establishing the innocence of the accused in highly reprehensible and is
cause for disciplinary action.
To be clear, what Shaughnessy has shown is contrary to innocence until guilt is proven.
In effect, Shaughnessy becomes overly interested to convict Stampler even before knowing the
full facts surrounding the case rather than making sure that justice is done. As a State Attorney,
it is least expected of him to be close-minded on the multitude of possibilities surrounding the
death of Archbishop Rushman especially that at this part of the movie, nothing has been
established yet. The danger of his action goes to the extent of possible suppression or
concealment of evidence and witness capable of establishing the innocence of Stampler if only
to make sure that his desire to mete out the capital punishment on Stampler be achieved. In
effect, conviction may be achieved but justice is not done.
If I were on the shoes on John Shaughnessy, I would not have uttered, lest believed, the
same remark. As earlier stated, Rule 6.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands
that the primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but to see that
justice is done. The same code suggests that justice is achieved only in the presence of
impartiality. Thus, impartiality is not only expected of a judge but even among prosecutors to the
end that conviction only becomes incidental to the delivery of justice. It should not be an end
goal for prosecutors at all times for it may lead to desperate measures which may even lead to
resorting to illegal means to create a strong case.

Primal Fear Reaction Paper

After feasting my eyes on Primal Fear, I was able to realize a plethora of things. This
film not only sparked my interest as a student of the law, but as a student of Psychology as well.
The films theme of a cocky, yet talented defense attorney in seeking good publicity coupled with
the psychologically scarred individual made a compelling and interesting tale. The actors were
really good at their roles, but none more so than Edward Norton who portrayed the role of the
demented Aaron Stampler in an award winning manner. The twist at the end left my jaw open as
I realized the ingenuity of Nortons character. To be able to dupe Richard Geres character into
believing that he was truly innocent and it was the other entity who killed the archbishop was
simply staggering. This also made me realize that no matter how prudent or skilled a lawyer
may be, things can go out of hand real fast. Murphys Law is always in effect, Anything that can
go wrong, will go wrong. This much is true for nearly everyone in the film. It all seemed to start
from the time during Aaron Stamplers youth, since he was exposed to physical, verbal and
possibly sexual abuse by his father all those negative feelings were repressed in his psyche and
turned him into this being capable of extraordinary cunning and brutal violence. Add to that the
further torment of having an Archbishop, a supposed servant of the Lord subject him and his
companions into doing sexual acts in front of a camera. This portrayal of the archbishop mirrors
todays distorted image of priests who are regarded as hypocrites, pedophiles and a sort of
cancer. All the pent up emotion caused Stampler to murder the Archbishop. The murder then
started a series of events that would forever change the lives of those involved.
The notion that every person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty is more or
less a universal doctrine adopted by the civilized world. The presumption is that all men are
born good, and that society alters a person. This has been a subject of debate both in the legal
aspect, as well as the psychological aspect. The so called nature, nurture debate. A respected
Psychologist, Carl Ransom Rogers was the proponent of the Humanistic Perspective. Simply
put, this perspective or theory assumes that all men are born good. This is what Richard Geres
character said to the reporter who asked him what makes him do what he does. Geres
character did state that the money and the spotlight provided powerful incentives for him to
defend alleged douchebags and scum. However, ultimately he said that he does what he does
because he believes that everyone is innocent unless proven otherwise by a competent tribunal.
The legal dilemma here is really how can a lawyer defend his client if he knows that the
latter is truly guilty? That seems to be the dilemma of every practicing lawyer. Especially to
those who are engaged in criminal prosecution or criminal defense. The film showed that the
murder was really committed by Stampler, the hard evidence pointed towards him, he had
motive to kill the archbishop yet it took only one man, Richard Gere to lead to the mad mans
acquittal. Cases are won, and lost by technicalities. To build ones case, to make it as strong as
possible and to destroy the oppositions case to ensure victory. All of that must be done
according to the rule of law of course is a lawyers duty. In the film, however the truth was
really heartbreaking. Richard Gere helped a mad man evade justice. As of now, I really do not
have substantial knowledge about criminal procedure or how trials are done especially since the
setting of the film was in the United States however it was abundantly clear that justice, equity
and humanity lost. A mad man, a psychopath for all intents and purposes schemed, acted, and
manipulated his way to freedom. To say the least, although Richard Gere won the battle, he lost
the war. He may have won the case by having the charges against Stampler dismissed, but he
lost the war when he aided in setting a mad man free.