Joel Cohen

August 02, 2010 | Law.com

In their latest column, Joel Cohen and Katherine A. Helm turn their attention to the Gulf Coast oil spill and its impact on the perennial issue of when judges should recuse or be disqualified from hearing a particular case. They conclude that, not only is it unrealistic to think we can eradicate all judicial biases, but it is also unwise. Say Cohen and Helm: We want our judges to live in the real world, so that they can bring their life experiences and common sense to the table when deciding cases.

By Joel Cohen and Katherine A. Helm

10 minute read

October 05, 2009 | Law.com

Exactly when, and why, must lawyers stay buttoned up and when are they permitted -- maybe even morally obligated -- to be critical of the environment in which they work? Joel Cohen and Katherine A. Helm examine the potential collision of confidentiality, criticism and civility and the impact on lawyers' ethical and professional duties to their clients, fellow legal practitioners and the practice of law as a whole.

By Joel Cohen and Katherine A. Helm

14 minute read

November 30, 2009 | Law.com

A recent spate of litigation has showcased the ugly side of what happens when lawyers' clients, in an effort to protect themselves, "waive goodbye" to both their counsel and the once-inviolate attorney-client privilege, write Joel Cohen and Katherine Helm. The lingering issue for counsel is: If corporate clients don't hesitate to defenestrate the privilege and abandon their counsel when they find themselves in a bind, where does that leave lawyers?

By Joel Cohen and Katherine A. Helm

9 minute read

March 01, 2010 | Law.com

Between two U.S. Supreme Court rulings last week and the persistent controversy over the best way to handle suspected terrorists, the matter of Miranda rights and the very nature, scope and application of Miranda have become hot-button issues for all concerned. Joel Cohen and Katherine A. Helm take a look at the current health of Miranda and examine misperceptions of, and attacks on, the fundamentals of Miranda.

By Joel Cohen and Katherine A. Helm

9 minute read

November 02, 2009 | Law.com

As part of their commentary on the 24-hour news cycle, celebrity status and ethical constraints on lawyers' speech, Joel Cohen and Katherine A. Helm examine the unfolding events surrounding the alleged extortion of late-night talk show host David Letterman. Cohen and Helm conclude that a little push back or pot-stirring by counsel to refute what amounts to attacks in the press on one's client may not only be permissible behavior under law, but may well be required in some cases.

By Joel Cohen and Katherine A. Helm

11 minute read

March 28, 2011 | Law.com

Katherine A. Helm and Joel Cohen examine the increasingly prevalent mix of superheated rhetoric and partisan commentary, and conclude that the remedy for undesirable speech is always more speech.

By Katherine A. Helm and Joel Cohen

10 minute read

February 08, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Ethics and Criminal Practice column, Joel Cohen, a partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, uses recent headlines as a jumping off point for a discussion of the judicial ethic that basically insists that judges sometimes engage in a certain amount of deceptiveness on the record, lest they appear to communicate that they are influenced by ostensibly impermissible considerations.

By Joel Cohen

14 minute read

October 20, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Joel Cohen, who practices white-collar criminal law at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan and is an adjunct professor at Brooklyn and Fordham law schools, writes that if a lawyer whose competence and loyalty to the client cannot be questioned tells the client his legitimate options and realistic chances at trial, then a judge should not intrude on what is ultimately the client's choice.

By Joel Cohen

12 minute read

February 23, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Joel Cohen, a partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan and an adjunct professor at the Brooklyn and Fordham Law Schools, writes that at one time, honesty was society's ultimate virtue. Today, the new goal is credibility. Simply appearing "truthful" can be enough. This shift, evident everywhere from politics to advertising, has now moved to the sacred domain of the courthouse. This is especially true in the context of accomplice witnesses who seek to gain reduced sentences in exchange for their testimony.

By Joel Cohen

11 minute read

December 14, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In his Ethics and Criminal Practice column, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan partner Joel Cohen writes that as a layman, you would never advise a relative or close friend to insist on a trial to prove innocence when the district attorney has offered an extraordinarily lenient plea deal. But you're not a layman. You have ethical responsibilities beyond those of the man on the street. Can you, as an ethical lawyer, tell a client who adamantly protests innocence to plead guilty?

By Joel Cohen

14 minute read