QUESTION: My relative is a lawyer facing an ethical dilemma. If his client, who was investigated by former federal prosecutors, wishes to file an administrative claim against the Department of Justice for damages, alleging that the investigation was improper or politically motivated—even though the client did engage in wrongdoing, is it permissible for the attorney to pursue a claim on these grounds despite the client's wrongdoing?
ANSWER: As a general rule, an attorney should not represent a client that he knows is lying. This principle includes cases where both plaintiff and defendant are non-Jews. The foundation for this standard is established in several key Scriptural passages. Firstly, "Midvar Sheker Tirchak" calls upon individuals to distance themselves from falsehood. Secondly, "V'Halachta BiDrachav" obligates us to emulate the ways of Hashem, whose ways are synonymous with truth. The Sifre, as cited by the Chofetz Chaim in the seventh chapter of Sefer Sefas Tamim, elaborates that failing to uphold truth or participating in deception runs counter to this commandment. Thirdly, "Lifnei Iver" prohibits placing a stumbling block before the blind—interpreted as causing another person to sin. When a lawyer represents a client that he knows is lying, he is causing and enabling the client to lie. In addition, there is a similar Rabbinical prohibition of, "MeSayei LeOvrei Aveirah" a prohibition of enabling evil doers. For further reading, see Rav Yechiel Tauber's Maishiv Bahalacha Siman 85.
However, the answer to your question above requires a different analysis. If the lawyer knows that his client committed illegal acts, but the client seeks to pursue a claim that the underlying investigation was improper or politically motivated, a specific distinction must be recognized. A client's allegations regarding political motivation represent an independent factual claim, separate from the underlying conduct. Exposing flaws or biases in investigative procedures can serve the interests of justice, even when the subject is liable for wrongdoing, because the administrative claim concerns procedural integrity rather than a declaration of innocence. Permitting politically motivated investigations to go unchallenged can undermine the entire legal system. Here, your relative is not enabling the original misconduct but rather addressing a separate procedural concern.
This approach aligns with "Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof" (Deuteronomy 16:20), which directs the pursuit of justice through just means. Furthermore, "Lo Sakiru Panim BaMishpat" (Deuteronomy 1:17) commands impartiality in judgment—an obligation that extends equally to those conducting investigations. Where investigations are compromised by political bias, this foundational principle is contravened irrespective of the defendant’s culpability. Additionally, "Lo Sisa Panim BaDal VeLo Sehdar Penei Gadol, BeTzedek Tishpot Amisecha" (Leviticus 19:15) instructs judges to maintain fairness and avoid favoritism, safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process itself. Challenging an unjust procedure upholds these principles and ensures that justice is administered equitably. Accordingly, it appears that your relative may represent the client in this context, provided he does not assert false claims regarding the client’s innocence.
