On March 1, 2023, after being pulled over for not having legal license plates, Chase Allen was killed by police in Farmington after he pulled a gun on officers. The District Attorney declined to press charges against the arresting officers because it was determined they “had a reasonable, articulable, and objectively verifiable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death, or serious bodily injury to themselves or others.”[1] It was brought out that Chase and his parents are members of the Sovereign Citizen movement. This case brings attention locally to the movement and highlights the potential ethical conflict that can be created for an attorney if asked to defend a Sovereign Citizen.
Sovereign Citizen Movement
It's estimated that there are as many as 300,000 or more self-proclaimed Sovereign Citizens in the United States alone. Their core beliefs include that “the US government (is) illegitimate, that common law supersedes Federal law, and that they are not U.S. Citizens, but rather ‘natural persons’ not subject to government authority.”[2]
Ethical Practice
Model Rules of Professional Conduct outline ethical legal practice. Rule 1.1 requires that attorneys competently represent their clients by possessing adequate expertise in the relevant area of law.[3] It also states in 1.2 that the lawyer is to follow the client’s decision concerning the objective of representation.[4]
Conflict
In Nix v Hoke (2004) the 9th circuit court affirmed that even obstinate or misinformed clients retain legal rights to representation on appeal.[5] Conversely, in United States v. Schneider (1990) the 9th circuit also ruled that attorneys have an ethical obligation to withdraw if a client demands pursuit of frivolous or false legal filings.[6] Utah Rule 1.16 outlines declining representation. Rule 1.16(b)(2) asserts that an attorney may terminate representation of a client if the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer services that the lawyer reasonable believes is criminal or fraudulent.[7] The fake laws that Sovereign Citizen demand to have applied to them are fraudulent.
Discussion:
Is there an ethical conflict
created by these cases? One seemingly calls for an attorney to withdraw if the
client insists on frivolous or false filings, while the other says that
criminal defendants retain the right to counsel despite frivolous defenses.
[1] Pierce, Scott D., “Farmington
Police Shooting of Suspected Sovereign Citizen Chase Allen Ruled Justified.” Salt
Lake Tribune, 13 Sep 2023 https://www.sltrib.com/news/2023/09/13/farmington-police-shooting/
[2] Sovereign Citizens
Movement. Southern Poverty Law Center.
(n.d.).
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement
[3] UCJA Rule 13-1.1
[4] UCJA Rule 13-1.2 (a)
[5] ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, U. S. D. J. (2001, April 26). Nix v. Hoke. https://casetext.com/case/nix-v-hoke-2
[6] POSNER, C. Judge. (1990, August 24). U.S. v. Schneider.
https://casetext.com/case/us-v-schneider-16
[7] UCJA Rule 1.16(b)(2)
This is a fascinating topic and one that always makes you go Hmmmm... It would be challenging to represent a criminal defendant who did not recognize the laws, especially since they are accused of breaking them.
ReplyDeleteLet's say the crime(s) they are charged with are severe enough that their freedom is on the line. You would do every ethical and legal thing to get them to understand that what is in their best interests is to work within a system that, yes, they may not recognize but that literally holds their sovereignty in their hands.
One of the reasons that law was so interesting to me versus going back into the medical field had everything to do with how attorneys seemed to take their ethics and duty to hold information about their clients confidential. Believe it or not, it is true. There is so much gossip, judgment, and disrespect that I have witnessed and personally been subjected to as a patient. Yet whenever I contacted attorneys, they NEVER discussed anything about their work.
I saw them as ethical professionals with integrity.
Having a sovereign citizen for a client would not have its challenges. However, everyone deserves due process, including competent legal representation. In criminal cases, they have a Constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. Suppose a client is asking and demanding their attorney act fraudulently or unlawfully. In that case, the attorney is well within their ethical obligation as officers of the court to seek removal from the case. If I were the attorney, I wouldn’t hesitate to seek withdrawal from the case.
What an interesting point to bring out, Nikki. I'm sorry to hear you've had difficult experiences in medicine. That's so not okay, especially with all the annual training in HIPPA. That's disappointing. But, I like what you said about the integrity you've experienced with legal professionals.
DeleteThank you for pointing out that Due Process is a right to all, even for more difficult cases and individuals. It really is quite a responsibility to carry.
This is a very interesting example and way of thinking about ethics. One question that came up for me while reading was whether sovereign citizens actively participate in the legal system when they are charged with a crime or sued. Do they participate out of self-preservation? Or do they try to argue their way out of it? Would they want representation at all?
ReplyDeleteTo address the question you posited, I do think the cases and regulations you highlighted do create an ethical conflict. If this conflict was in front of a judge, I think it would come down to balancing two legal values: due process and judicial efficiency. Due process would dictate that everyone has a right to have their claims resolved. I think a case would have to be clearly fraudulent to be dismissed. On the other hand, courts and lawyers want to function efficiently and not waste time on frivolous suits.
I've watched several court videos online...many that were filmed from the sovereign citizens or their loved ones directly. I've seen some that act aggressively and defiant, while others will often change their tone when they realize they aren't getting anywhere.
DeleteI like the value balance you bring up: rights vs efficiency. Those are important elements. Courts are often already so busy and bogged down. The sovereign citizen movement contributes to that challenge. It was interesting to learn that these groups are not only in the U.S., but also in the U.K. and Australia. I wonder how the processes in dealing with these people vary in countries where rights may not be quite the same. Thank you for your thoughts!
I, unlike Ryne, have watched almost every video of Sovereign Citizens trying to defend driving violations and be pro se in criminal courts on YouTube. It is some of the juiciest videos on the internet. But it is also fascinating how the art of cherry-picking the law to fit this wild narrative can be as powerful as the cherry picking of evangelicals. They often sound knowledgeable, quoting things we learn in THIS class without ever taking a class on law. It seems like an overreaction to some sort of "control" trauma from their past. Some sort of life crisis causing them to desperately seek autonomy and be controlled by nothing other than their own free will. Perhaps I digress too much and I should focus more in pitying the defense attorneys assigned to such stubborn people.
ReplyDeleteOooooooh, the videos! I'm with you.
DeleteI find myself feeling so frustrated at the sense of entitlement, while also trying to make sense of what is going on. How is this a thing? It doesn't make sense. Fascinating to try to understand what causes people to go down the paths they do, though.
In a time when we have SO MUCH access to information, I guess it can be difficult to find accurate information and therefore, with some trauma mixed in, people lose grip. Definitely trust issues....but we can only speculate the layers of this.
I wonder what happens if a sovereign citizen is educated on the realities of law. Are some capable of being self-reflective, or would they double-down? From the videos I've seen...probably double-down.
Would more "civics" classes for adults help people to better spot misinformation. Maybe a 1-day mandatory class when you register your car? Although, for a sovereign citizen, who doesn't even believe they have to register their car legally, mandatory law education would probably not be effective. Hahahha.
The terms I've heard used are interesting. They'll use terminology like "jurisdiction" or phrases like "Supreme Court Rule" but in reality, these terms are twisted just enough to be nonsense and meaningless.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like a very strange idea of rebelling from law...and then using (fake) law. Arguing with law in the name of law? Another thing I've learned is that, although they rebel against established actual laws, at the same time will often try to file multiple lawsuits. It seems opportunistic: only wanting to follow the laws that might benefit them, while ignoring those that require them to be accountable.
I'm curious about how this plays out when an attorney is trying to help facilitate their right to due process. Does the sovereign citizen ever actually TRUST the attorney that is trying to help them?
Solely considering the ethics of having representation, a defense attorney should represent their client to their very best despite on whether or not they believe they are innocent or not. What's the point of the Constitution and the amendments if there is no one to defend it?
ReplyDeleteHowever, no one should be coerced in anyway to partake in any unlawful or fraudulent actions on the behalf or behest of their client. If I was a defense attorney, I should have the right to recuse myself because I may not represent client to the best of my ability depending on the circumstances.
I sound contradicting, but it depends.
Sovereign citizens are somewhat of a special kind of... Coming from Hawaii, a place that was illegally annexed, I feel for indigenous people. Native people and people who have lived there for several generations keep getting pushed out from their homes because of gentrification and rising costs. Not too mention the laws that are made and treaties that are broken that continue to affect indigenous people negatively throughout the US. Whenever I hear "sovereign" anything without indigenous or native, I feel like it is salt on old wounds that may never heal.
Thank you for pointing that out, Justin. I think I can appreciate that the misapplication of the self-given title of "sovereign" for this group can be disrespectful.
DeleteSpeaking of terms...
It's also interesting that the term sovereign citizen is contradictory by itself. Where "sovereign" means autonomous, free, or independent, "citizen" means "being the subject of a nation, state, or commonwealth" (according to Webster Dictionary).
That is exactly where my mind initially goes too, Justin. I think of tribal sovereignty and I am much more sympathetic and supportive of them governing themselves.
DeleteMr. Allen's claim as a sovereign citizen, not so much. Perhaps because I was too invested in the Longmire series and they portrayed a group of sovereign citizens in a very terrifying way (which I don't think is far from the truth, they are terrifying).
I like that you broke down the definition Nancy, it is quite contradictory. I guess I agree, they may deny themselves as citizens (although, I'm not sure how that actually works), but our system should not be prejudicial, sovereign citizens, regardless of how they view their relationship with the government, will be afforded the same rights and privileges that any other citizen of this country has.
Both rulings from the 9th circuit court can be correct. Obstinate and misinformed people have a right to be represented (in a criminal trial) and attorneys also have the right to withdraw if clients are asking them to behave in ways that are unethical.
I'm curious how many of them accept representation. It seems that they would be much more likely to represent themselves pro se. Because their arguments have no basis in law, I can't imagine they are ever successful, I imagine they don't respond to court rulings very favorably.