Ethics concepts and frameworks

Criminal Justice

Ethics

In March of 1996 F. Lee Bailey became the focus of criminal prosecution after he and the United States government had a difference of opinion over who was allowed millions of dollars of stock previously owned by Claude Duboc, a drug dealer and client of Bailey's. The government insisted on surrender of the stock, but Bailey said a plea bargain he had made with the government on behalf of Duboc permitted Bailey to keep it. When Bailey declined to hand over two million dollars to the federal district court in Tallahassee, Florida, he was sentenced to six months in jail for contempt. In August of 2000, a federal judge held Bailey in contempt of court for not turning over the Duboc moneys. Nevertheless, the judge refused to jail or fine Bailey on the basis that federal prosecutors failed to correctly trace the money or to recuperate assets from Bailey. In November of 2001, the Florida Supreme Court handed down a decision founded on Bailey's exploitation of the Duboc stock funds that ordered Bailey to be disbarred from practicing law in Florida. In April of 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts rendered a unanimous decision upholding the decision to disbar Bailey on the basis that he intentionally did not follow ethics rules (The Florida Bar v. F. Lee Bailey. (2001).

According to Standard 4- 1.1 of "the American Bar Association the basic duty defense counsel owes to the administration of justice and as an officer of the court is to serve as the accused's counselor and advocate with courage and devotion and to render effective, quality representation" (Criminal Justice Section Standards, n.d.). This basic duty often leads to conflicts of interest for defense attorneys. Basically there is a conflict that exists between the business interests of defense attorneys and their duty to their client, as well as their duty as an officer of the court. It was in trying to balance these interests that F. Lee Bailey stepped over the line and got himself into trouble.

When looking at the facts of the case against Bailey he committed numerous counts of misconduct over the years, including presenting false testimony, taking part in ex-parte communications, violating a client's trust, violating two federal court orders, and trust account infringements, including commingling and misappropriation. Disbarment is the acknowledged punishment for a lot of these acts of misbehavior and was very appropriate in this case. The most disputed issue in this case had to do with a trust that was created with the transfer of the Biochem stock from Duboc to Bailey. The Bar contended that the plea agreement with the U.S.

Government afforded that Bailey was to hold the stock in trust for the profit of the U.S. Government. Bailey would utilize the stock to uphold and liquidate Duboc's properties. After this was taken care of, the stock or its substitute resources would be handed over to the United States in order to take full advantage of any advantage to Bailey's client for his cooperation. Bailey would have been okay if this is what he had truly done, but it wasn't. Instead he transferred the money into his own personal account and used it to pay business and personal expenses.