Law and Legal Significance of Michael Connelly\'s the Lincoln Lawyer

¶ … Lincoln Lawyer by Michael Connelly

In The Lincoln Lawyer, a legal thriller novel, Michael Connelly delves deep into the inner-dynamics of criminal justice system, highlighting the disconnect between the system's underlying idealistic philosophies, and the often ethically questionable, practical realities of how the system actually plays out. The protagonist, Mickey Haller, is a successful and well-known Los Angeles criminal defense attorney and trial lawyer, who operates his practice out of the back seat of his chauffeured Lincoln Town Car. Haller displayed a highly cynical attitude regarding the nature of the justice system, asserting that "[t]he law was not about truth. It was about "negotiation, amelioration, manipulation." Haller saw himself as a mere "mechanic," working with a "large rusting machine that sucked up people and lives and money." His 15 years of 'wheeling and dealing' in the system, representing gangsters, drug dealers, prostitutes, and thugs, led him to conclude that the idealistic "notions about the virtue of the adversarial system, of the system's checks and balances, of the search for truth, had long since eroded." (p. 27).

In spite of his somewhat sardonic approach toward his job, Haller is required to abide by the California State Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct, to support the Constitutions of the United States and California, and to faithfully carry out the duties of an attorney to the best of his knowledge and ability. His legal and professional responsibilities are put to the test when he takes on representation of Louis Roulet, a wealthy and slick Los Angeles realtor charged with attempted murder and attempted rape of a woman working as a prostitute. Roulet emphatically declared his innocence and refused to take a deal. Roulet's version of facts about the incident giving rise to the charge was initially convincing. However, Haller's investigation began uncovering many inconsistencies in Roulet's story, and Haller eventually realized that his client had lied to him -- Roulet was, in fact, guilty of the charges. Nonetheless, as a defense attorney, Haller's duty is to represent his client, not to proceed according to the client's possible guilt or innocence: "I didn't deal in guilt and innocence, because everybody was guilty. Of something," Haller stated. (p. 27).

Haller's role as a defense attorney is to hold the government to its burden of proving criminal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, require that where a defendant is charged with a crime, the state must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Although not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, the presumption of innocence is a basic component of a fair trial. The prosecution bears the burden of proving each element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, according to Haller, "[i]t didn't matter in terms of the strategy of the case whether the defendant 'did it' or not. What mattered was the evidence against him -- the proof -- and if and how it could be neutralized." Accordingly, Haller could take guilty client's case to trial and win without any moral quams.

Haller's "job was to bury the proof, to color the proof a shade of gray. Gray was the color of reasonable doubt." (p. 53) Moreover, a lawyer is obligated to abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation. In a criminal case, the lawyer must adhere to the client's decision, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial, and whether the client will testify. Here, Roulet insisted on his Constitutional rights to jury trial and to testify in his own defense. Employing this approach, Haller zealously litigated and advocated on Roulet's behalf throughout trial, even though he began to detest his dishonest client, believing him to be guilty. Haller pursued an excellent defense at trial even though he began violating his own rule to ignore the irrelevant question of whether a client was guilty.

Haller's continued advocacy on Roulet's behalf demonstrates Haller's commitment to defense work -- if Haller had wished to end his employment for Roulet based on his suspicion of Roulet in the murder of his investigator and other conflicts within their relationship, he could have requested permission from the court. Per the California Rules of Professional Conduct, with the court's permission, an attorney may withdraw from representing a client if the client renders it unreasonably difficult for the attorney to carry out the representation effectively.[footnoteRef:-1] [-1: Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700]

Ironically, Haller declined to zealously advocate and pursue a defense at jury trial for Jose Menendez, an incarcerated past client. Like Roulet, Mendendez had also insisted on his innocence to the charge of murder, but Haller failed to recognize his innocence. Haller had convinced Menendez, who was in fact, innocent, to plead guilty rather than go to trial. With his discovery of Mendendez innocence, in connection with his discovery of Roulet's guilt, Haller was haunted by the words of his lawyer father: " the scariest client a lawyer will ever have is an innocent client. Because if you fuck up and he goes to prison, it'll scar you for life."

(p. 100). Menendez was later released and brought a malpractice action against Haller.

Through defense investigation and communications with Roulet, Haller learned that Roulet had killed people in the past, and Haller suspected that Roulet killed his investigator, Levin. However, Haller has a duty of confidentiality to his client. As a general rule, communications between an attorney and client during the course of professional representation are confidential. This means that the client has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent others from disclosing, most information communicated between him and his attorney. Even if a client such as Roulet confesses that he committed the charged crime, or that he committed murders in the past, the rules of professional conduct prohibit an attorney from disclosing such information if he learned it within the scope of legal representation. Fortunately for Haller, the attorney-client privilege ceases when a client brings a malpractice action against his attorney. Thus, when Roulet later ends up suing Haller, Haller can properly breach his duty of confidentiality.