The lawyer-client relationship is constituted through communication, and the lawyer’s advising role is a foundational element. This chapter begins by reviewing the most significant professional requirements impacting lawyers when advising clients. It then reviews the major models for advising in lawyer-client relationships. Attention is given to the methods employed in research on lawyer-client advising and some key findings of that research. Finally, it discusses best practices for lawyers in giving advice and for clients in receiving advice.
‘You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.’ This is the police caution, presented by police officers in England and Wales when individuals are arrested, and immediately before they are interviewed. A similar wording is recited if they are charged. On entering custody, suspects will also be offered access to a written version of the wording, along with information on other rights, most importantly the right to legal advice. This article examines three aspects of cautioning – its official wording, its explanation in context, and its upshots during the extended legal process – and also discusses the issues surrounding non-native speakers when encountering cautions and warnings. It then outlines the standard wording of the police caution, including its comprehensibility and comprehension. The article concludes by considering the caution's administration, as well as its influence on speech, silence, and their interpretation.
Peter M. Tiersma
The United States is often called a nation of immigrants. The earliest migrants were the Native Americans or Indians. Starting in the early 1600s, European immigrants began to arrive on the east coast, mostly from England and other parts of northern Europe. Spaniards explored and colonized the southwest of what is now the United States, and somewhat later, Russian traders were active in Alaska and the Pacific coast. Today, English is heavily dominant in almost all of the United States, but it was not always so. Even now, there are substantial linguistic minorities throughout the country. This article, which examines language policy in the United States, provides a background on Native American languages, European languages in early America, and immigration in America during World War I. It also looks at the movement to make English the official language of the United States, focusing on Arizona's law and resulting litigation and the Kritz case in Alaska. The article concludes by considering governmental services to non-English speakers in the areas of medical care and social services, elections, and education.
Durk Gorter and Jasone Cenoz
Many linguistic minorities in Europe are vulnerable or severely endangered and in need of protection. Although there are still many weaknesses, there is a trend in Europe towards the improvement of minority rights. Inside the European Union (EU), Spain and the United Kingdom have taken the lead in devolving central power to minority-dominated regions. The Treaty of Lisbon, adopted in 2009, introduced for the first time the word ‘minorities’ in EU-primary law. Although its impact remains to be seen, it has the potential to improve the protection of European minority languages. This article focuses on the legal rights of linguistic minorities in the EU. It looks at some major international human rights instruments, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) of the Council of Europe (COE) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) of the United Nations. The article then examines EU language policy and linguistic rights, and concludes with an outlook for the future.
Genuine peaceful contact presupposes a mutual will to try to understand the other party's signed or spoken signals and symbols; to accommodate, and to learn at least some of them (often using a pidgin, an auxiliary simplified language), or to learn a common lingua franca, foreign to both. For dominant groups, their own rights have often been, and still are, invisible: they take them for granted. Even today, this is one of the problems when discussing and trying to formulate linguistic/language rights (LRs). Dominant linguistic groups often feel a need to formally codify their language rights only when dominated groups, for example indigenous/tribal peoples, or minorities of various kinds (ITMs), start demanding LRs for themselves. Most people connect LRs mainly to ITMs, and most LRs are found among special minority or indigenous rights rather than general human rights (HRs). This article discusses LRs as HRs, LRs versus linguistic human rights (LHRs), LHRs for linguistic majorities and minorities, collective LHRs, justifications for LHRs, individual positive LHRs, and LHRs and the role of indigenous peoples.