Moral and legal ethics differ significantly. People should not mix up those notions. While moral ethics states that one action is inadmissible, legal ethics assures that there is no other way of dealing with the case. Considering an example of Alton Logan who had to spend 26 years in jail for the crime he did not commit, the problem of legal ethics is going to be considered in the light of the cultural relativism theory. No one denies the hazards of cultural relativism, but there are no ways out in some cases. Having considered the case and the supporting information, it should be stated that two attorneys who remained silent about the innocence of Alton Logan were right from the point of view of the legal ethics; this opinion may be supported with the cultural relativism theory, no matter how failing and unmoral it seems from other points of view. The legal ethics is a notion which stands for a set of rules of conduct which exist in the attorneys’ world. One of the main rules which attorneys should follow is keeping a client’s secret. In case if this rule had not been established, an attorney would not be able to serve a client effectively. If a client is not assured that his/her secret is going to be kept, he/she is unable to trust an attorney. When attorneys deal with the information received from a client, attorneys are to be aware of “their ethical obligations to maintain client confidences and the court-imposed protections provided by what is known as the attorney-client privilege” (Currier and Eimermann 2009, 277). Considering this problem for a particular case, one may doubt this set of rules and find it as unmoral. The case is as follows, a person, Alton Logan, was convicted for murder and condemned to imprisonment for life. Twenty-six years two attorneys, Dale Coventry, and Jamie Kunz knew that he was not guilty, but they could not say a word. The main reason why they remained silent is that their client, Andrew Wilson, confessed that it was he who committed a murder. Two attorneys could do nothing. Protecting their client, they were unable to say the truth (Lawyers Keep 26-Year Secret). On the one hand, the actions of the attorneys are unmoral, but it is so if to consider their actions for moral ethics, but they had to use another ethics, legal one. If to consider the problem from legal ethics, the cultural relativism theory should be checked. To be clear about what we are to consider, here is the definition of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is a perspective that aims to understand – not condone or discredit – foreign behavior and thinking. [It is] the perspective that the standards of home culture should not judge a foreign culture and that behavior or way of thinking must be examined in its cultural context (Ferrante 2008, 77-78). Thus, if to consider the actions of the attorneys from the cultural relativism, it is possible to state that they were right. An attorney is a person who must keep secrets which a client says him/her. This is one of the main rules in legal ethics. As Dale Coventry noted in the interview, “…if you check with attorneys or ethics committees, it is very, very clear – it is not morally clear – but w