Jill Porter: Law, duty and truth

LAWYER RICHARD

Sprague may have reveled in plunging the blade into his now-enemy Vince Fumo this week.

But he didn't do himself any favors.

Sprague, once Fumo's beloved mentor and best friend, labeled Fumo a liar when he testified at Fumo's trial this week.

But he acknowledged that he was something of a liar, too.

Sprague admitted that after Fumo was indicted in 2007, he made statements to the public and to a congressional committee that he didn't believe were true.

"My duty in terms of my client was to convey what my client was saying," he testified this week.

"Whether I believed him or not was not the issue."

So one of the most powerful attorneys in Philadelphia believes that it's acceptable to deliberately mislead the public on behalf of a client?

That it's appropriate to vigorously perpetrate an untruth, as part of his legal obligation?

That's sure to enhance the credibility of lawyers - such as it is.

Sprague's posturing on Fumo's behalf may not be officially unethical under the code of legal conduct, which specifically prohibits misleading a court but not the public.

But it sure seems underhanded and immoral to me.

Fumo is charged with, among other things, obstruction of justice for deleting e-mails pertinent to a federal corruption investigation that he knew was under way.

Fumo claims that Sprague and another attorney told him that it was legal to purge the information, despite the investigation, because he hadn't personally been subpoenaed.

Sprague testified on Wednesday that he had told Fumo no such thing.

But he acknowledged having written a letter to a congressional investigating committee that there was "uncontroverted evidence" that another lawyer had given Fumo such advice.

And he insisted the same thing at a 2007 news conference he called on Fumo's behalf, which I attended.

"Senator Fumo went and sought advice from a lawyer - not me - on whether to change his policy" of routinely deleting e-mails, Sprague said at the news conference.

"That lawyer told Senator Fumo, 'No, you don't have to change your policy because you haven't been subpoenaed.' "

In court this week,

Sprague contemptuously dismissed the idea that Fumo had been given such legal advice.

"Did I believe it?" he said in response to a question from Fumo's attorney, Dennis Cogan.

"Of course not."

Cogan chided him for not acknowledging that he didn't believe Fumo.

"Mister Cogan," Sprague said indignantly, "are you suggesting to this jury that I speak up for my client and at the same time tell the public that I don't believe my client? No lawyer would do that, and you know it."

But not every lawyer - or so you'd hope - would deliberately sell the public a bill of goods.

Lawyers are clearly prohibited from lying in court and in sworn testimony before, say, a legislature.

But lying in public "is not so clear," said Robert Tuttle, a professor of law at George Washington University Law School.

Still, it's not considered "honorable" behavior, said Tuttle, an expert on legal ethics.

"And," he said, " here's the important point: It's not something that lawyers are expected to do in defense of your client."

Lawyers have no obligation to violate "ordinary moral standards on behalf of a client," Tuttle said.

When faced with an "awkward question," he said, "there's a big difference between deferring and deflecting a question and affirmatively lying.

"Even if it's not illegal, it suggests something about overstepping this role from somebody offering a lawful service to somebody who feels that their job is to protect this person at all costs."

So while Sprague may feel triumphant this week about being able to inflict damage on Fumo, he didn't do himself any favors, either.

E-mail porterj@phillynews.com or call 215-854-5850. For recent columns: http://go.philly.com/

porter