Let me qualify that title: if you’re a lawyer and want to become a Psychic Friend, you should probably not pretend that you’re providing legal advice. If you want to make a full career change, maybe you should hand in your law license, just be to be on the safe side.
That’s because lawyers, when engaged in the practice of law, are bound by strict ethical rules requiring them to be completely honest with their clients, and only give them advice based on the facts of their case, and the applicable law. Psychics also purport to give their clients useful advice, though the assertion that they actually do this is, to be charitable, questionable.
So, what happens when a lawyer acts as both an attorney as well as a channel to the supernatural realm? In one case, it resulted in a state bar telling an attorney under its jurisdiction to pick a job, and stick with it.
A lawyer in Arizona is facing disciplinary action, and a possible 6-month license suspension, after convincing her client that she was possessed by the client’s deceased wife. Apparently, the lawyer and the client exchanged emails which contained vague references to sexual activities, presumably between the lawyer and the client. Under the laws and ethical rules of almost every state, sexual conduct between an attorney and a client is usually prohibited.
Both the lawyer and the client testified that they both genuinely believed that the lawyer was possessed by the deceased wife, and the discipline authorities didn’t get into the question of whether or not this is true. This is a good idea, because while there is almost no empirical evidence that psychic powers are real, the old “prove that they aren’t real!” argument, while illogical, can seriously bog down a debate or investigation into the question of whether or not ethics violations occurred.
It should be noted that the disciplinary board was able to
recommend suspension because the attorney misled it in an earlier, unrelated,
hearing about her belief that she channeled the dead wife, and not specifically
because of her claim that the channeling happened.
Still, this story raises some interesting issues about when a lawyer’s personal beliefs (and, as I’m sure you assume, lawyers span the ideological spectrum, just like any other group of people) might interfere with their job.
Suppose a lawyer genuinely believes that he or she is psychic, and that valuable evidence can be obtained by holding a séance, and asking (for example) the victim in a murder case who the murderer is. Obviously, any “evidence” gathered in this manner would be completely inadmissible, and rightly so. We simply have no way of knowing for sure, one way or another, if it’s authentic (unless there’s obvious evidence that the whole thing was faked). With other types of evidence, such as documents, photographs, physical evidence, etc., authenticity can usually be verified with some degree of certainty. Obviously, if you’re a criminal defendant, you probably don’t want your fate to rest on the feelings of somebody who claims, with no possible verification, to be a psychic.
One could also see this being a big problem in probate cases – when the validity or intent of a decedent’s will is being determined. Suppose there are two children of the decedent, and the will clearly leaves a large sum of money to one of them, but it’s not clear which one. A probate court will have to determine the likely intent of the decedent at the time the will was written. Do we want cases like this determined by a lawyer who claims that he or she spoke to the decedent from beyond the grave, and the decedent clearly told the lawyer that he intended to leave the money to the lawyer’s client?
What if the lawyer for the other child makes the exact same claim, except to say that the decedent said that he wanted to leave the money to that lawyer’s client? Even if you assume that one of the lawyers is definitely psychic, there’s absolutely no way to determine which one is telling the truth. You can see why such evidence never gets anywhere near a courtroom.
This case is different, however. It wasn’t clear why the lawyer claimed to have “channeled” the deceased wife of her client, but it apparently wasn’t to gather evidence, or influence a court in any way. Perhaps it was a form of grief counseling? Even if the lawyer isn’t really channeling anyone, it might provide some emotional benefit to the client, helping him obtain closure, if he honestly believes that he’s talking to his wife. And if the lawyer honestly believes this as well, what’s the harm?
In this case, not much, apparently. But there are plenty of good reasons why a lawyer should leave the grief counseling or psychic channeling (if that’s what the client wants) to somebody else. Lawyers and grief counselors often perform roles that are diametrically opposed – attorneys usually have to keep their emotions out of a case, and advise their clients based on their best understanding of the facts and the law, not their feelings. Counselors, on the other hand, necessarily have to be empathetic (or at least sympathetic) with their clients.
Both professions can perform equally-important functions,
but they’re just too different, and their objectives too opposed, for one
person to fill both roles, for the same client.
By: Rusty Shackleford
Comments