A young man who had been arrested, along with two of his friends, for breaking into the coin boxes at an all night laundromat with a crow bar and stealing the money.  I represented one of these men and other attorneys represented the others.  My client had given me permission to plead "guilty" on his behalf, in hopes that I could get a plea bargain for him to serve the minimum time, 30 days.  I went to the district attorney before court started and made the offer.  She told me that she had already accepted similar plea bargains from the other two who were arrested and was going to recommend 30 days to the judge.  However, she advised me that my fellow had a prior conviction for doing the exact same thing and that now she would only recommend 90 days, if he plead guilty.  I advised my client that his two friends were going to get 30 days, each, but he would have to do 90 days if he plead guilty.  He was upset but eventually authorized me to plead guilty for him with the understanding that he would have to serve 90 days.  I made the deal with the district attorney. 

A few hours later, the case was called before the judge.  It had been a long day and many other cases were arraigned before this case was called by the judge.  When he finally got to our case, it was about 3 hours after all the plea bargain discussions had taken place.  All three defendants were called and we all plead guilty on behalf of our clients.  Then the Judge said, while looking at the file in front of him, "Well, since none of these men have any priors, I will sentence them all to serve 30 days each.  Is that right?" 

  What do  that ethical thing to do would be.  What consequences do have to worry about?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The ethical thing to do in this situation would be to correct the judges misunderstanding immediatel... View the full answer