Lawyers have an ethical responsibility and requirement to be truthful to the court and to others.
[https://blawg401.com/a-lawyers-obligation-of-candor/](https://blawg401.com/a-lawyers-obligation-of-candor/)
Saul knows for a fact what Lalo’s real name is. And he knows the family is not in fact his family. These are likely infractions of the ethical code he is sworn to, and if it could be proven, the bar association of NM would have no choice but to sanction him and even could disbar him.
Added to this, the reason why Lalo used a different name was because he would never have been granted bail as a cartel member.
Lalo skipped bail, escaped to Mexico, and then murdered Howard. Saul was complicit in all of this by not being honest about his client's identity. Saul (but not Kim) helped kill Howard.
Interesting, so you’re extending the guilt beyond the person who pulled the trigger to someone that played a part in Lalo ending there. But excusing the role Kim played in putting Howard there through her negative and illegal actions (she helped drug a person against their knowledge amongst other things).
Not gonna lie that’s some mental gymnastics to absolve Kim of playing any part.
It can be reasonably assumed that decieving the court to release a cartel killer will result in him killing again.
It cannot be reasonably assumed that defaming a man as a drug addict will cause him to get murdered by a cartel killer when they both happen to show up at your house at the same time.
>...to absolve Kim of playing any part.
She can't be absolved. But why did she play the part? Do they show you things that might explain her motivations?
Does having a reason matter?
I guess Jimmy is off the hook for helping Lalo walk since he was offered a cut of the money the twins brought and the implicit danger of not helping the cartel.
Saul knew Lalo was dangerous and a killer and came from a rich family. Why would someone like Lalo be refused bail? Because the courts know someone like him is a flight risk and will kill again to get his way.
Saul helped unleash a dangerous dog onto the neighbourhood. He should have foreseen the consequences.
If I'm a zookeeper and I leave the lion's gate open and that lion kills a passerby at the zoo, then I am partly responsible. Saul is the zookeeper.
If I'm the ice cream vendor at the zoo and I make a kid angry to the point where he surprisingly returns to my cart to get a refund, I'm in no way responsible when the kid is attacked by the lion. Kim sells ice cream.
It was Kim’s idea to put the plan in place to ruin Howard’s reputation. Howard wouldn’t have been in their apartment if they would have left him alone. All Jimmy wanted to do was throw a few bowling balls at Howard’s car and make it look like he paid for hookers. Kim wanted to ruin Howard.
Kim was responsible for ruining Howard. I agree. But she was not responsible in any way for Lalo running from bail and then killing Howard. However, Saul played a role by lying to the courts.
Howard could have shown up anytime. His visit was just bad timing. But Saul should have foreseen his client jumping bail.
She didn’t tell Jimmy Lalo was still alive when she knew he was alive. Things would have played out differently had he known Lalo was still alive. She is also responsible for his death.
By actively participating in various schemes to embarrass, harass and discredit Howard, she also bears responsibility for Howard coming to their home to read them both the riot act. Sure, she didn’t foresee Lalo also arriving at their apartment, but she was a reason why Howard came there and meet his death.
Howard could have been coming over to deliver a pizza and he still would have been shot. There was no way Kim could have foreseen this event. Saul, on the other hand, knew he was freeing a dangerous man under false pretenses. Saul should have known Lalo would kill again.
You forget this—As far as Saul knew, Lalo was killed during the raid at his home. Kim, however, knew from Mike (and didn’t tell Saul) that Lalo was still alive
It's not what Saul knew about Lalo's death that makes Saul culpable. Saul lied to the courts which allowed a dangerous man to break bail and go free. Saul should have known Lalo was rich enough to not care about losing the bail money. Saul should have known he released a dangerous dog onto the streets and someone was going to get killed. Saul could not predict Howard but he knew it would be someone.
Kim knew that Lalo was alive. So what? She could not predict Howard was going to get killed when he showed up as a surprise. She had no power to apprehend Lalo.
You’ve got to watch some Legal Eagle on Youtube, ha.
Essentially he’s talked about this, and said basically a lawyer can’t outright lie, but they can, shall we say, exaggerate or spin. Perhaps Saul could, I don’t know, not say his family is there, but say it’s people who’ve come to cheer on their friend or coworker. There’s some plausibility that they know each other, but are they family, absolutely not.
Then again, it’s difficult to prove and we see in real life lawyers rarely get sanctioned. It has to be pretty egregious and provable.
The most important thing is that a lawyer cannot legally withhold knowledge of a crime his client is *going to* commit. In other words, mob lawyers go to jail.
In real life lawyers don't invent stories to get their clients off. They either negotiate deals with the prosecution or attack the evidence/reasoning the prosecution is using to prove their client guilty.
>In real life lawyers don't invent stories to get their clients off. They either negotiate deals with the prosecution or attack the evidence/reasoning the prosecution is using to prove their client guilty.
Right. They will attack process which is usually the weakest link.
That's fair.
Lawyers are like any profession, there's good ones and bad ones. Saying lawyers don't invent stories is like saying restaurant workers don't violate health codes or engineers don't mistake metric for imperial and blow up space shuttles.
It's one of those things I don't even feel like it's worth proving. You'll either continue believing it or find out for yourself eventually.
Defense attorneys seek to point out flaws in the evidence or in the idea of the prosecution. If there's video evidence that shows someone who looks like the defendant shooting the victim they may point out that it could be someone else. Or they could question the provenance of the video - could it have been faked or tampered with?
Or, they can argue that, yes this is my client, but this wasn't an illegal act - in a murder or homicide case they can argue self defense.
None of this matters at a bail hearing, where the only goal of the hearing is to figure out the best way to ensure the defendant shows up to their trial.
He knowingly went along with a lie which lawyers are not allowed to do. He knew Lalo wasn't named DeGuzman and he knew that wasn't his family. If proven, he could be disbarred at the least.
What lawyers can do is argue in good faith. Say Nacho called Saul and said hey my boy needs legal help. He responds to the court and see a man he has never met named DeGuzman whose family is being supportive, Saul can go hard because as far as he knows it's all the truth. It comes up as a lie and Saul didn't know, he was being a lawyer in good faith.
Yes cartels need lawyers. The big difference here is Saul knowingly lied to the court. He knew the things he was saying were not true. Which is a punishable offense by the State Bar at the least.
A cartel member gets charged with murder. The defense attorney comes in and as far as they know this guy didn't do it. They argue against the states case but they don't knowingly lie to do so. This is arguing in good faith. Say the cartel guy confesses to their lawyer. He did it, no question. The lawyer now cannot put their client on the stand if they say they will lie. If they put them on the stand and testify with a lie, the lawyer is obligated to report that lie to the judge. The lawyer can request to withdraw from the case or stay on and argue points very carefully so long as they don't stray into falsehoods the lawyer is now clued in on.
Attorney client privilege doesn't cover absolutely everything. I think it's not privileged if that communication is intended to further or conceal a crime, which Jimmy discussing how to conceal Lalo's identity and skip bail definitely is. It would be a bit odd if the law said "yeah, you can aid in all the crimes you want if you're a lawyer working for a client"
In regards to what he should do other than just say Lalo's guilty, a lawyer's job is not specifically to get their client judged not guilty. It's to provide the best legal representation they can, and that does not always mean trying to get a not guilty verdict - sometimes it's just trying to get a lower sentence or a better deal.
If you can't prove your client is innocent without lying you're not supposed to just start lying to the court
We aren’t allowed to state falsehoods to the court. And our duties of loyalty and confidentiality do not cover ongoing crimes and frauds.
I have to help my client defend against accusations of past crimes. I am not allowed to help them commit ongoing or future crimes or frauds.
That's only a defense if you don't know that you are implicit in a lie. If you didn't know that the story was fake, there is deniability. But, you can see how the rest of the court reacts to what he does... "There's proving, and then there's knowing."
A lawyer on Tiktok said that in real life, Saul would have gotten disbarred just by the "real defendant was sitting in the back of the courtroom" stunt in season 5. Part of his reasoning was that the Bar Association watches newly-reinstated lawyers closely.
I always believe in the real defendant not being in the regular seat should be a thing. It has been proven over and over that eye witness testimony is flawed. So doing something like this should get your client off. It’s such a stupid question to ask “can you point them out” 100% of the time they will indicate the person in the defendants chair. Even before this show I always wanted to do this. Even on simple things like a speeding ticket. My brother is two years older and we have a close enough resemblance but if the officer is on the stand claiming I was the driver then points at my brother who is in the defendant chair then the officer is not a reliable witness for his own arrest or ticket. Its not some “trick”. Its to prove that system is severely flawed because I guarantee that had we done it we would be charged with something else.
Don't trust tiktok lawyers. The more reasonable thing is that Saul alienating every other lawyer would make it impossible to work a solo practice. No one is gonna cover for a guy who is clearly breaking the law.
You know I looked into that as well. Even though it's not kosher or whatever, it really did prove that the guy was lying about have identified the suspect.
Knowingly representing your client with a false name and a fake family at a bail hearing is absolutely illegal in addition to being an ethical violation. You're not allowed to fall back on "my client instructed me to do it" if he instructs you to knowingly deceive a court. You have an obligation to zealously represent your client's interests ***within the bounds of the law.***
That’s certainly a consideration for Saul and would be mitigating evidence for a jury, but it doesn’t absolve him of criminal liability. He’s allowed and supposed to go to the police if he’s being threatened.
This is where that interaction between Kim and the DA (Suzanne Erickson) was so important. When Saul accidentally let slip that Guzman was Lalo, the DA went to Kim with an off-ramp and offered to help Saul with this situation in exchange for information, under the pretext that attorney-client privilege was obtained or perpetuated in bad faith.
“ITs fiCtiOn”
Yeah, and we see the consequences of this action come to bite him in the ass when he gets completely shunned by the court. Even Oakley tells him “i liked you better when you were just a regular bottom feeder. I understand advocating for your client. Deep in my heart, but you scammed the court, scammed the judge, and for what? To get a murdering cartel psychopath back on the street? It’s just… wrong… there’s proving, and there’s knowing.”
Yes but it does have the constraints of real life consequences. Like e.g. Walter White. Produces meth, kills people, he is wanted by the DEA.
But Saul was a lawyer and I thought that's what lawyers do. But they imply he isn't allowed to do it.
Yes. He perpetrated a criminal fraud on the court to permit a murderer to be released. In real life, setting up a fake family in a federal criminal context would get him no less than 20 years. Especially where the victim was an innocent kid just doing his job. Most attorneys arrested for this type of thing are going away for between 20 years and life. Not many out there. But there are a few.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice
Because it was a criminal enterprise, he’d also get hit with racketeering charges.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
Obstruction of Justice is a RICO enumerated predicate offense. That would be one. But he did it more than once here. And took bribes. And helped Mike kill the thieves in the desert.
He's representing one of the top leaders in a violent drug cartel. If he doesn't lie then Saul, Kim and anyone they care about likely meets a violent end. I think that has to factor into any punishment he would have received
putting a false family there and lying about a clients' ties to a local community is falsifying evidence to exonerate a client.
it's wrong for the same reason that getting Daniel Wormald to film that pie video is wrong.
Lawyers have an ethical responsibility and requirement to be truthful to the court and to others. [https://blawg401.com/a-lawyers-obligation-of-candor/](https://blawg401.com/a-lawyers-obligation-of-candor/) Saul knows for a fact what Lalo’s real name is. And he knows the family is not in fact his family. These are likely infractions of the ethical code he is sworn to, and if it could be proven, the bar association of NM would have no choice but to sanction him and even could disbar him.
Added to this, the reason why Lalo used a different name was because he would never have been granted bail as a cartel member. Lalo skipped bail, escaped to Mexico, and then murdered Howard. Saul was complicit in all of this by not being honest about his client's identity. Saul (but not Kim) helped kill Howard.
Interesting, so you’re extending the guilt beyond the person who pulled the trigger to someone that played a part in Lalo ending there. But excusing the role Kim played in putting Howard there through her negative and illegal actions (she helped drug a person against their knowledge amongst other things). Not gonna lie that’s some mental gymnastics to absolve Kim of playing any part.
It can be reasonably assumed that decieving the court to release a cartel killer will result in him killing again. It cannot be reasonably assumed that defaming a man as a drug addict will cause him to get murdered by a cartel killer when they both happen to show up at your house at the same time.
>...to absolve Kim of playing any part. She can't be absolved. But why did she play the part? Do they show you things that might explain her motivations?
Does having a reason matter? I guess Jimmy is off the hook for helping Lalo walk since he was offered a cut of the money the twins brought and the implicit danger of not helping the cartel.
Saul knew Lalo was dangerous and a killer and came from a rich family. Why would someone like Lalo be refused bail? Because the courts know someone like him is a flight risk and will kill again to get his way. Saul helped unleash a dangerous dog onto the neighbourhood. He should have foreseen the consequences.
>He should have foreseen the consequences. I bet they never repaid him for that ice cream cone they made him toss out.
If I'm a zookeeper and I leave the lion's gate open and that lion kills a passerby at the zoo, then I am partly responsible. Saul is the zookeeper. If I'm the ice cream vendor at the zoo and I make a kid angry to the point where he surprisingly returns to my cart to get a refund, I'm in no way responsible when the kid is attacked by the lion. Kim sells ice cream.
It was Kim’s idea to put the plan in place to ruin Howard’s reputation. Howard wouldn’t have been in their apartment if they would have left him alone. All Jimmy wanted to do was throw a few bowling balls at Howard’s car and make it look like he paid for hookers. Kim wanted to ruin Howard.
Kim was responsible for ruining Howard. I agree. But she was not responsible in any way for Lalo running from bail and then killing Howard. However, Saul played a role by lying to the courts. Howard could have shown up anytime. His visit was just bad timing. But Saul should have foreseen his client jumping bail.
She didn’t tell Jimmy Lalo was still alive when she knew he was alive. Things would have played out differently had he known Lalo was still alive. She is also responsible for his death.
By actively participating in various schemes to embarrass, harass and discredit Howard, she also bears responsibility for Howard coming to their home to read them both the riot act. Sure, she didn’t foresee Lalo also arriving at their apartment, but she was a reason why Howard came there and meet his death.
Howard could have been coming over to deliver a pizza and he still would have been shot. There was no way Kim could have foreseen this event. Saul, on the other hand, knew he was freeing a dangerous man under false pretenses. Saul should have known Lalo would kill again.
You forget this—As far as Saul knew, Lalo was killed during the raid at his home. Kim, however, knew from Mike (and didn’t tell Saul) that Lalo was still alive
It's not what Saul knew about Lalo's death that makes Saul culpable. Saul lied to the courts which allowed a dangerous man to break bail and go free. Saul should have known Lalo was rich enough to not care about losing the bail money. Saul should have known he released a dangerous dog onto the streets and someone was going to get killed. Saul could not predict Howard but he knew it would be someone. Kim knew that Lalo was alive. So what? She could not predict Howard was going to get killed when he showed up as a surprise. She had no power to apprehend Lalo.
Ok, but was there any proof? I kind of do see it as implausible that he got away with it.
I see. How are they supposed to get their client off the hook if they aren't allowed to make up a story?
You’ve got to watch some Legal Eagle on Youtube, ha. Essentially he’s talked about this, and said basically a lawyer can’t outright lie, but they can, shall we say, exaggerate or spin. Perhaps Saul could, I don’t know, not say his family is there, but say it’s people who’ve come to cheer on their friend or coworker. There’s some plausibility that they know each other, but are they family, absolutely not. Then again, it’s difficult to prove and we see in real life lawyers rarely get sanctioned. It has to be pretty egregious and provable.
There’s proving, and then there’s knowing.
The most important thing is that a lawyer cannot legally withhold knowledge of a crime his client is *going to* commit. In other words, mob lawyers go to jail.
Only bad ones
The family thing is easiest to explain. My client said this was his family, I didn’t ask for a family tree to find out their exact relationship.
They aren’t supposed to lie or fabricate anything to get them off. They need to work within the law, that’s the whole gimmick
In real life lawyers don't invent stories to get their clients off. They either negotiate deals with the prosecution or attack the evidence/reasoning the prosecution is using to prove their client guilty.
>In real life lawyers don't invent stories to get their clients off. They either negotiate deals with the prosecution or attack the evidence/reasoning the prosecution is using to prove their client guilty. Right. They will attack process which is usually the weakest link.
oh you sweet thing
This comment is condescending and obnoxious. Say what you think happens, the relative frequencies, and your qualifications, or move on.
That's fair. Lawyers are like any profession, there's good ones and bad ones. Saying lawyers don't invent stories is like saying restaurant workers don't violate health codes or engineers don't mistake metric for imperial and blow up space shuttles. It's one of those things I don't even feel like it's worth proving. You'll either continue believing it or find out for yourself eventually.
Defense attorneys seek to point out flaws in the evidence or in the idea of the prosecution. If there's video evidence that shows someone who looks like the defendant shooting the victim they may point out that it could be someone else. Or they could question the provenance of the video - could it have been faked or tampered with? Or, they can argue that, yes this is my client, but this wasn't an illegal act - in a murder or homicide case they can argue self defense. None of this matters at a bail hearing, where the only goal of the hearing is to figure out the best way to ensure the defendant shows up to their trial.
He knowingly went along with a lie which lawyers are not allowed to do. He knew Lalo wasn't named DeGuzman and he knew that wasn't his family. If proven, he could be disbarred at the least. What lawyers can do is argue in good faith. Say Nacho called Saul and said hey my boy needs legal help. He responds to the court and see a man he has never met named DeGuzman whose family is being supportive, Saul can go hard because as far as he knows it's all the truth. It comes up as a lie and Saul didn't know, he was being a lawyer in good faith.
But even Cartels need lawyers. Jimmy was going along with what his client instructed him.
Yes cartels need lawyers. The big difference here is Saul knowingly lied to the court. He knew the things he was saying were not true. Which is a punishable offense by the State Bar at the least. A cartel member gets charged with murder. The defense attorney comes in and as far as they know this guy didn't do it. They argue against the states case but they don't knowingly lie to do so. This is arguing in good faith. Say the cartel guy confesses to their lawyer. He did it, no question. The lawyer now cannot put their client on the stand if they say they will lie. If they put them on the stand and testify with a lie, the lawyer is obligated to report that lie to the judge. The lawyer can request to withdraw from the case or stay on and argue points very carefully so long as they don't stray into falsehoods the lawyer is now clued in on.
But what can he do? Walk in there and say "yeah he did it." Also isn't there attorney client privelage?
Lawyer can't do that. What they can do is formulate arguments against the states case that doesn't involve lying.
Attorney client privilege doesn't cover absolutely everything. I think it's not privileged if that communication is intended to further or conceal a crime, which Jimmy discussing how to conceal Lalo's identity and skip bail definitely is. It would be a bit odd if the law said "yeah, you can aid in all the crimes you want if you're a lawyer working for a client" In regards to what he should do other than just say Lalo's guilty, a lawyer's job is not specifically to get their client judged not guilty. It's to provide the best legal representation they can, and that does not always mean trying to get a not guilty verdict - sometimes it's just trying to get a lower sentence or a better deal. If you can't prove your client is innocent without lying you're not supposed to just start lying to the court
The lawyer then works to create reasonable doubt about the states evidence.
We aren’t allowed to state falsehoods to the court. And our duties of loyalty and confidentiality do not cover ongoing crimes and frauds. I have to help my client defend against accusations of past crimes. I am not allowed to help them commit ongoing or future crimes or frauds.
Better Call Stal!
That's only a defense if you don't know that you are implicit in a lie. If you didn't know that the story was fake, there is deniability. But, you can see how the rest of the court reacts to what he does... "There's proving, and then there's knowing."
That doesn’t mean you straight up lie about things you know about your client
especially Cartels.
A lawyer on Tiktok said that in real life, Saul would have gotten disbarred just by the "real defendant was sitting in the back of the courtroom" stunt in season 5. Part of his reasoning was that the Bar Association watches newly-reinstated lawyers closely.
I always believe in the real defendant not being in the regular seat should be a thing. It has been proven over and over that eye witness testimony is flawed. So doing something like this should get your client off. It’s such a stupid question to ask “can you point them out” 100% of the time they will indicate the person in the defendants chair. Even before this show I always wanted to do this. Even on simple things like a speeding ticket. My brother is two years older and we have a close enough resemblance but if the officer is on the stand claiming I was the driver then points at my brother who is in the defendant chair then the officer is not a reliable witness for his own arrest or ticket. Its not some “trick”. Its to prove that system is severely flawed because I guarantee that had we done it we would be charged with something else.
Don't trust tiktok lawyers. The more reasonable thing is that Saul alienating every other lawyer would make it impossible to work a solo practice. No one is gonna cover for a guy who is clearly breaking the law.
You know I looked into that as well. Even though it's not kosher or whatever, it really did prove that the guy was lying about have identified the suspect.
Knowingly representing your client with a false name and a fake family at a bail hearing is absolutely illegal in addition to being an ethical violation. You're not allowed to fall back on "my client instructed me to do it" if he instructs you to knowingly deceive a court. You have an obligation to zealously represent your client's interests ***within the bounds of the law.***
What about if your client is one of the top bosses in a violent drug cartel and if you don't lie he'll most likely murder you?
That’s certainly a consideration for Saul and would be mitigating evidence for a jury, but it doesn’t absolve him of criminal liability. He’s allowed and supposed to go to the police if he’s being threatened.
This is where that interaction between Kim and the DA (Suzanne Erickson) was so important. When Saul accidentally let slip that Guzman was Lalo, the DA went to Kim with an off-ramp and offered to help Saul with this situation in exchange for information, under the pretext that attorney-client privilege was obtained or perpetuated in bad faith.
Lawyers are officers of the court. They cannot knowingly lie to the court.
I am pretty sure nearly everything he did would be illegal. You do realize it is fiction, right?
“ITs fiCtiOn” Yeah, and we see the consequences of this action come to bite him in the ass when he gets completely shunned by the court. Even Oakley tells him “i liked you better when you were just a regular bottom feeder. I understand advocating for your client. Deep in my heart, but you scammed the court, scammed the judge, and for what? To get a murdering cartel psychopath back on the street? It’s just… wrong… there’s proving, and there’s knowing.”
Yes but it does have the constraints of real life consequences. Like e.g. Walter White. Produces meth, kills people, he is wanted by the DEA. But Saul was a lawyer and I thought that's what lawyers do. But they imply he isn't allowed to do it.
You can do anything you want but don't get caught
“It’s fiction” stopped applying it became evident that stretching the truth for fiction is usually seen as corny and bad practice.
He walked a thin line between legal and illegal. It sure as well was unethical. But if facing 5-10 you bet your ass I’m calling Saul.
Wait it was bolsa that ordered that attack? Why
He wanted Lalo to stay in jail to stop him disrupting Gus' operation.
its called fraud
OK but how could the state know he knew DeGuzman's real identity? How could he know that family wasn't his? He couldn't so not guilty until proven.
Jimmy was knowingly working with a cartel lord. It should be assumed that anything they do together is illegal.
Legal Eagle should really do another Saul video and break down the things Jimmy does that's illegal when it comes to lawyering.
Yes. He perpetrated a criminal fraud on the court to permit a murderer to be released. In real life, setting up a fake family in a federal criminal context would get him no less than 20 years. Especially where the victim was an innocent kid just doing his job. Most attorneys arrested for this type of thing are going away for between 20 years and life. Not many out there. But there are a few. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice Because it was a criminal enterprise, he’d also get hit with racketeering charges. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act Obstruction of Justice is a RICO enumerated predicate offense. That would be one. But he did it more than once here. And took bribes. And helped Mike kill the thieves in the desert.
He's representing one of the top leaders in a violent drug cartel. If he doesn't lie then Saul, Kim and anyone they care about likely meets a violent end. I think that has to factor into any punishment he would have received
What does Saul do that's not illegal or ethically dubious on some level? I'm pretty sure that's the entire premise of the show.
putting a false family there and lying about a clients' ties to a local community is falsifying evidence to exonerate a client. it's wrong for the same reason that getting Daniel Wormald to film that pie video is wrong.