Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannie
I think a newbie provider boot camp is an excellent idea. Although more involved, it would make it a heck of a lot safer for them. Not to mention it would make the "transition" here, a lot easier. +1 to everything Matador suggested.
|
I've conducted newbie provider boot camps before, not specifically related to a web site, but for agencies, AMPs, and, studios. There's a basic set of common sense principles I discuss, I give an overview of Texas laws regarding prostitution, and I answer questions.
I enjoy doing the boot camps because preparing for one forces me to keep up with changes in the law, and nearly each time I do one I get at least one question about a hypothetical situation I've never considered before. That keeps me on my toes. I think they've been useful. My clients eliminated or at least dramatically reduced problems they'd had with LE.
I think many of the problems providers have with LE stem from provider folklore passed by word of mouth that inaccurately states the law or is based on a misunderstanding of the law. The boot camps serve to debunk those myths and get the girls to think like someone involved in the criminal justice system.
There would be some logistical issues with doing an in-person boot camp for providers not connected to a particular business, but I don't think those issues can't be dealt with. I could think of a number of secure places a set of independent providers could come together for a boot camp, maybe even in my office on a weekend (as long as they all promised not to have sex with me -- haha) It's also possible a boot camp could be done by teleconference, but I'll leave it to the tech geeks to ponder the mechanics of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba3452
Lots of good ideas. However, once you take an active role in enabling someone to brake the law, you could find yourself in much greater trouble. I post that anyone can read might be one thing, but directly and privately advising someone on how to break the law could be a real issue. Just driving a provider to a session could cause the driver to get in trouble big time.
What do you think SJ? If I pm a new ladies with instructions on how to be a better provider, etc or actualy met with her to instruct her could I be deemed facilitating? Or what ever the term is?
|
In my opinion, no one here could reasonably be expected to be charged with an offense by writing and/or sending a PM, or by teaching at a provider boot camp, if the subject matter of the PM or boot camp was limited to the law and how to try to remain in compliance with the law.
A person who assists another person in the commission of a crime may, under certain circumstances, be as guilty as the primary actor. This topic -- i.e., when does one move from being only an advisor to being an aider and abetter / accomplice / co-conspirator -- is an interesting topic to me as a hobbyist/lawyer, one on which I wrote a professional paper that I presented to a group of lawyers a few months ago. (As an aside, in Texas, the principles involving the criminal responsibility of a third party (with the actor being the first party and the victim of the crime the second) is called the "law of parties.") The following are my views.
I would never advise a client to break the law or how to break the law. When I take part in a provider boot camp (and yes, each provider attending the boot camp is my "client" under the law), I limit my remarks to what the laws state and what a provider can do to try to avoid criminal liability. I do not lecture providers on how to be "good" or "better" providers, certainly not regarding BCD activities. (I believe in the old saw, "Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, teach gym." Haha.)
To me, a "crime" occurs when there is some type of formal disposition of a case, such as a conviction after a trial or the defendant pleads guilty. Committing the conduct that meets the elements of an offense, alone, is not a "crime" in my book. So if I advise a client how to act or not act in a way that doesn't create evidence that may be used by LE, then to me I'm not aiding my client in breaking the law -- I'm helping them to NOT break the law.
My views are far from original. Somewhere in the back of my little brain I remember this subject from my law school ethics class. (Yes, lawyers are taught ethics. No snide remarks from the peanut gallery. Haha.) I dug up the relevant attorney conduct rule and the commentary, which explain things much better than I could.
The relevant attorney conduct rule states:
Quote:
|
A lawyer shall not assist or counsel a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. A lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel and represent a client in connection with the making of a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.
|
See
Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.02 - Scope and Objectives of Representation
Under this rule, I may advise my client that if she makes an offer, or accepts an offer, or actually engages in sexual conduct for a fee, she may be guilty of prostitution. Further, I may tell her not to do those things. But it would be more problematic for me if I told her not to do those things at 3:00 p.m. this afternoon when my little brother, ShysterJim, comes to the Garland Tug and Suck Shack to see her.
The commentary to Rule 1.02 explains further. I do not include the commentary because I believe a staff of lawyers would conduct the boot camps. Most lawyers who are engaged in the hobby are too busy spending horizontal time with our beloved sporting women to also spend vertical time with them; rather, I think any person, be they lawyer or human, who keeps these guidelines in mind will probably greatly reduce the risk of criminal responsibility.
Quote:
*A lawyer is required to give an honest opinion about the actual consequences that appear likely to result from a client's conduct. The fact that a client uses advice in a course of action that is criminal or fraudulent does not, of itself, make a lawyer a party to the course of action. However, a lawyer may not knowingly assist a client in criminal or fraudulent conduct. There is a critical distinction between presenting an analysis of legal aspects of questionable conduct and recommending the means by which a crime or fraud might be committed with impunity.
*When a client's course of action has already begun and is continuing, the lawyer's responsibility is especially delicate. The lawyer may not reveal the client's wrongdoing, except as permitted or required by Rule 1.05. However, the lawyer also must avoid furthering the client's unlawful purpose, for example, by suggesting how it might be concealed. A lawyer may not continue assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer originally supposes is legally proper but then discovers is criminal or fraudulent. Withdrawal from the representation, therefore, may be required. See Rule 1.15(a)031.15(a)(1).
*Paragraph (c) is violated when a lawyer accepts a general retainer for legal services to an enterprise known to be unlawful. Paragraph (c) does not, however, preclude undertaking a criminal defense incident to a general retainer for legal services to a lawful enterprise.
*Paragraph (d) requires a lawyer in certain instances to use reasonable efforts to dissuade a client from committing a crime or fraud. If the services of the lawyer were used by the client in committing a crime or fraud, paragraph (e) requires the lawyer to use reasonable efforts to persuade the client to take corrective action.
|
