Questions on Spaulding v. Zimmerman
1. It seems that defense counsel was not obligated to tell David Spaulding
about his aneurysm. Should he have been? Was he obligated not to tell David?
Could he have told David over his client's objections? If not, what could
he have done short of disclosure to David?
2. Why did defense counsel decide not to tell David Spaulding about his aneurysm?
What risks did this strategy entail?
3. How would this case have turned out if David had not been a minor?
4. Did anyone else violate their duties to David (e.g. David's lawyer
or the doctors)?
5. What are the possible justifications for the loyalty that a lawyer is
allowed to show his client - given that, as the Spauling case shows, this
loyalty can often disadvantage others?