[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

of this court would have been much more difficult than it is.
. . . But that is not the situation before this court. We have the Fifth Amendment right,
derived from the Constitution, on the one hand, as against the trivia of a pseudo-criminal
statute on the other, which has seldom been brought into play. Clearly the latter is
completely out of focus when placed alongside the client-attorney privilege. . . .
It is the decision of this court that Francis R. Belge conducted himself as an officer of
the court with all the zeal at his command to protect the constitutional rights of his client.
Both on the grounds of a privileged communication and in the interests of justice the
indictment is dismissed.
Problems
8-3. The town is in turmoil. Two children are missing. Client tells Fox he killed the
two children and where the bodies are buried. Now what? Does it matter if the parents still
hope the children are alive, they’ve been on television nightly, and the town has been
conducting a massive search for two weeks?
8-4. Client tells Martyn where he hid the stolen money. Now what? What if Client
hands Martyn the key to the safe deposit box where the money is stored? Can Martyn give
it back? If she keeps the key, can she be forced to testify that her client gave it to her?
C. Compliance with Law or Court Order: Practice Before a Tribunal Model
Rules 1.0(m), 1.6(b)(6), 3.3, 8.4(c) and (d) Model Code of Judicial
Conduct, Rule 2.9 (A)(4) RLGL § 63
Problem
8-5. Judge Smith calls Martyn into chambers. “Tell me your client’s bottom line.”
Client authorized Martyn to offer $50,000. “$25,000,” Martyn stammers, proud of her
tough negotiating stance. Is Martyn in trouble?
1. Representations of Fact and Law Model Rules 3.3, 5.2, 5.3
People v. Casey
948 P.2d 1014 (Colo. 1997)
PER CURIAM.
A hearing panel of the supreme court grievance committee approved the findings and
the recommendation of a hearing board that the respondent in this lawyer discipline case be
suspended for forty-five days from the practice of law and be ordered to take and pass the
238