When an Attorney Directs You to Do Something Illegal: Legal Responsibility and Consequences

Introduction

The relationship between an attorney and a client is based on trust and the assurance that the attorney will provide legal guidance that is both accurate and within the bounds of the law. However, questions arise when an attorney directs a client to perform actions that may be illegal. This article explores the legal implications and responsibilities for both the attorney and the client in such scenarios. We will delve into the concepts of actus reus and mens rea, clarifying the roles of intention and action in determining liability.

Legal Responsibilities and Trust in the Attorney-Client Relationship

When an attorney directs a client to do something illegal, the primary responsibility falls on the attorney. As legal professionals, attorneys are expected to understand and adhere to the law. They must provide guidance that both fulfills the client's wishes and remains within legal boundaries. If an attorney instructs a client to engage in illegal activities, it is the attorney who is primarily at fault. This is because the attorney has the professional obligation and practical knowledge to understand the legal implications of their advice.

It is important to note that the client, despite trusting the attorney, should also exercise due diligence. If something sounds suspicious or illegal, the client should ask questions and investigate further before proceeding. Ignorance of the law is generally not an excuse, and clients must take responsibility for understanding and validating the legal nature of the advice they receive.

Concepts of Actus Reus and Mens Rea in Legal Scenarios

Legal actions often require an understanding of two fundamental concepts: actus reus and mens rea. These terms are crucial in determining the culpability and liability of an individual in a legal context.

Actus Reus

Actus reus refers to the actual illegal act committed. In many criminal and civil cases, the act alone is sufficient to establish responsibility. For example, in traffic law, if you are caught speeding, the act of speeding is enough to hold you liable, regardless of whether you knew you were speeding or that it was against the law.

Mens Rea

Mens rea involves the mental state of the individual performing the act. It refers to the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing. Higher-level crimes often require both elements: the act and the intention to commit the crime.

An easy example to illustrate the difference between actus reus and mens rea is the distinction between murder in the first degree and manslaughter. In first-degree murder, the perpetrator kills another person with a premeditated intent to kill. Manslaughter, on the other hand, involves the same act of killing but without such premeditation. The mental state is a key factor in the legal classification and severity of the crime.

Attorney's Liability for Illegal Advice

When an attorney advises a client to do something illegal, and the client follows that advice, the attorney’s liability depends on the nature of the act and the presence of mens rea.

When Only Actus Reus is Required

In scenarios where liability is based solely on the act (actus reus), the attorney's advice does not provide a defense. The client's mental state or intent does not mitigate liability. For instance, if an attorney advises a client to commit a traffic violation like speeding, the client is still liable for the act, regardless of whether they intended to commit the violation.

Theoretical Exceptions and Context

There are exceptions and complexities to the rigid application of these legal principles. If an attorney advises that an action is legal and the client relies on that advice, the situation can be more nuanced. Lawyers have a duty to provide accurate and lawful advice, but reliance on erroneous advice does not automatically establish legal responsibility. However, if the attorney’s advice directly leads to an illegal act, the attorney may still bear some responsibility, especially if the advice was not reasonable or was considered negligent.

Conclusion

In the professional landscape of attorney-client relationships, the legal responsibilities and potential consequences for both parties are significant. While the primary burden of responsibility lies with the attorney for providing legal advice, clients must also exercise due diligence in verifying the legal nature of the advice they receive. Understanding the principles of actus reus and mens rea provides a clearer framework for determining liability in illegal actions directed by an attorney. Ultimately, both clients and attorneys must navigate these complexities with knowledge and caution to protect themselves and their clients from legal trouble.

Keywords: legal responsibility, attorney liability, illegal actions, actus reus, mens rea