(07-01-2022 10:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-01-2022 09:37 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-01-2022 09:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  To wit, to make an analogy to my profession, every 20 years something comes along that changes an aspect of representation such that it imparts an existing standard on the representation in a new context. Sometimes that changes the mode of practice to where an attorney could actually find themself 'aiding and abetting' instead of what was previously an act of representation.

I'm reminded of mob lawyers, or family lawyers - or like Saul in "Breaking Bad" - who have to (or in Saul's case fail to) walk the line between knowing the details of their client's activities and being co-conspirators. It's part of the job.

I'm under the impression that lawyers are seldom prosecuted for blurring the line, and not usually prosecuted even if they cross it. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

Ask Michael Cohen about that.

To the above, every so often a state bar will change the rules on the above ever so slightly. Sometimes a court might agree on a then novel theory that has the same effect.