看了大家的回帖，有点想法

首先，这不是简单的法律和道德的冲突问题，值得注意的是这个案子链接出处的原型介绍中有这样一段话

（注：英文附在后面）

也就是说，我们不应当简单的说律师是否应当保守秘密，事实上律师的职业规则也是在逐渐明确和细化究竟什么时候应该保守秘密的

按照最新的规则（我的理解和前面的比较，范围明确和缩小了），如果委托人的秘密信息"可能导致死亡或重大伤害"，律师就应当披露秘密信息

也就是说，如果委托人的秘密是关于人质的生命，显然是需要披露的，在这里，程序正义和大义并不矛盾

那么回到这个真实的案子和地主讲的电视剧故事，我们可以看出，不是简单的律师该不该披露秘密，而是律师该不该披露不该披露的秘密，因为按照规则，不披露埋尸地点对受害者家属造成的伤害，不是死亡或重大伤害

阿玛尼之所以被认为是英雄，是因为案子发生在1973年，所以才会说“该案并不是给历史做的一个有趣的脚注，而是在发展和理解何为律师之一命题中的核心案例。”

他走在了时代的前面

个人感想

事实上，在契约社会，也不是简单的一句誓言，法律是什么？法律不是刻在柱子上的条文，而是在人们心中，更确切地说，在法律体系从业者心中，再细的法律，也是抽象的，条文总是有限的，究竟符合哪一条法律，需要人来判定，而每个人对法律的理解都可能不同

看到有法律系学生对此案的评价，指出了这种保守委托人的秘密是为了让所有未来的委托人知道自己的秘密可以被保守，从而对律师说出自己的秘密，有利于案件的公平审理，就是说，这是个局部利益和全局利益的问题

契约社会中，法律如果和道德发生了冲突，有的是法律不完善，需要修订，有的可能是局部利益和全局利益的冲突（或者说车上的人和行人的冲突，很多人开车的时候骂行人，走路的时候骂开车的），还有一些，本来就是媒体和公众舆论因为得到的信息不全面，加上了许多臆测之后，产生的矛盾（其实最近几年影响较大的案子都多多少少有一点，例如瓮安等等）

英文参见

链接出处

“This case is not just an interesting historical footnote,” says Morgan. “It’s a central case in our development and understanding of what it means to be a lawyer.”

NO SECOND THOUGHTS

Morgan and other experts say the case still is relevant to the ongoing debate over the boundaries of a lawyer’s duty of confidentiality to clients. In the ABA Model Rules of Professional Con duct, that duty is set forth in Rule 1.6. (The Model Rules are the basis for conduct codes that directly govern lawyers in most states.)

At the time Armani and Belge represented Garrow, lawyers in New York were governed by that state’s version of the ABA Model Code of Professional Respon si bility. The Model Code allowed a lawyer to reveal “the intention of his client to commit a crime and the information necessary to prevent the crime,” but not prior acts admitted in confidence.

The Model Code was replaced by the Model Rules in 1983; in its original version, Rule 1.6 allowed a lawyer to reveal client confidences “to prevent the cli ent from committing a criminal act that the lawyer believes is likely to result in imminent death or substantial bodily harm.” In 2002, Rule 1.6 was amended to permit a lawyer to reveal confidential information “to pre vent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.”

While those differences in language might seem like ethical hair-splitting, the 2002 amendment was one of the most hotly debated items in a package of Model Rules revisions considered by the ABA House of Dele gates. The House narrowly adopted the new language over objections that it would erode confidentiality rules for lawyers. Other proposals by the Ethics 2000 Com mission to ease the rules on confidentiality were voted down or withdrawn in the face of opposition.

(A year later, the House revised the Model Rules to allow lawyers to reveal client confidences to prevent financial wrongdoing in some circumstances.) Armani said at the CPR program that in 1973 he wasn’t even aware there was a written ethics code for New York lawyers. His guide was the oath he had taken when he was sworn in as a lawyer in 1956. He had promised, he said, to “maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate” the secrets of his client. And that was what he and Belge did.

Armani insists he is no hero. And he says he would handle the Garrow case just the same if he had it to do over again.

“Of course,” he says. “I’d have to.”