Once again you fail to see the end result of your proposal. If you allow the defence attorney to make the decision to find his client guilty or innocent by simply deciding whether or not to inform the judge, then why do we need a judge? When you throw out the right of a defendant to confide in his attorney, you're not just throwing out their right to a fair trail, you're throwing out an innocent person's rights too. How do you propose to determine whose rights are upheld and whose aren't? According to you, you leave that determination up to the defence attorney. Once you do that, why even bother with a trial?
You forget that everyone is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in COURT. NOT by an attorney!!!!
You see, it would work like this:
Client gets arrested for a crime.
He says to his defence attorney: I didn't do it, I was at home watching TV
The defence attorney reads this person's record and finds he has (in the past) committed some violent crimes.
Defence attorney thinks "this guy doesn't deserve to be free" then goes to the judge and says "he confessed your honor, lock him up".
Or another scenario:
Client gets arrested for a crime
He says to the defence attorney: I did it, I'm guilty, but here's $60,000.00 to say I'm innocent and another $60K after I'm let off
Defence attorney goes to the judge: he's innocent your honor and poof, he goes free.
Or, in a perfect world: Why would ANY client confide ANYTHING in his attorney knowing that the attorney COULD use it against him?
YOU CANNOT LEAVE IT UP TO THE ATTORNEY TO DECIDE WHETHER SOMEONE IS INNOCENT OR GUILTY!!!!