I don’t have an argument against the legal necessity for client confidence, but if a non-lawyer had first hand knowledge of a confession of murder, wouldn’t they be subject to being charged with being an accessory or obstruction of justice or something? The existence of “one law for them, another one for us” is a pretty odious concept, regardless of the justification. I don’t have an alternative, I’m just saying that the perception of a class of people being above the law could be a key component of the public’s general distaste for lawyers.
It is a little unfair to describe the lawyer as being “above the law” in that position. It isn’t that the lawyer doesn’t want to set the record straight, and is protected by the law from prosecution for not doing it. In any cases I have heard about, the lawyer wants to divulge the information, but is not allowed to. It’s a burden, not a boon. The vast majority of criminal defense lawyers I have come across are driven by a desire for justice. Very few defense lawyers are pulling in Johnny Cochrane money - there are much more lucrative avenues of the law.
Juries decide civil damages as a rule. However, it is important to note that the overwhelming majority of cases don’t get to trial (something I am not a fan of as a litigator who actually likes the court room); when a case settles, judges can be VERY active in pushing the settlement and making the parties know the range of damages they should be looking at. Even if the jury does decide on a particular level of damages, the judge can reduce that through remittitur. The judge says what he thinks the level of damages should be, and the prevailing party has the option of accepting that level, or going for a new trial. Very occasionally, in (some) state courts, the judge may increase the damages through additur, but that is a definite rarity.
Jury damages are also often subject to revision by courts through the post-trial process. Whether it is the trial judge setting aside the verdict or ordering a new trial, or the appelate court tossing out the verdict or revising the damages, the amount can often be changed. Once again settlement can be “encouraged” by the judge at this point, by letting the parties know he is amenable to certain post trial verdicts if the case isn’t disposed of.
I don’t think you understand what the role of a lawyer is. It is an adversarial system - it is designed that way because it works better. I cannot knowingly present a lie from my client, but my job is to best represent that person or corporation. The opposing party in the case is the one with the duty to investigate. I’m an advocate, not a neutral party. That’s very different from having no moral responsibility. My moral responsibility is to best represent my client and his or her interests, within very strict ethical guidelines (much stricter than many other professions).
What tends to get forgotten in the “lawyers are all scum” discussions is the large amount of pro bono work done by the legal community. For those of us in the corporate legal world, it’s very often the most rewarding work we do. And big firms tend to be very good about giving you the time and resources to do it.
The problem is that in an adversarial system, it doesn’t behoove the doctor to admit s/he is wrong, or to offer an fair settlement from the beginning. That doctor’s insurance company lawyers would never give opposing council that much of an advantage because they know, in most cases, such candor would result in them paying more that what they consider “fair”. The system doesn’t encourage people to be honest about their mistakes, reasonable, responsible, or to seek a just outcome (see Exxon Valdez).
Why do you think they are so strict? Maybe it’s because they need to be. An unethical lawyer can cause far more damage than the typical engineer, doctor, teacher, or business man.
I personally think the answer to the question the OP is that there are a lot of scummy lawyers. It’s not that being a lawyer makes you a scumbag, just that certain areas of the law attract scummy people. Just as banking attracts many greedy people, and law enforcement attracts many power-hungry people. The vast majority of lawyers are good, moral people. But, there is a reason why people hate lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians- all careers dominated by “lawyers”.
The part that I blame lawyers for is that they have set up a reward system that attracts greedy, and ethically dubious people. The problem is that many/most hard-working, smart lawyers are attracted to fields where they will make a lot of money, doing questionable work, because they have staggering debt when they graduate (ie. corporate law, big industry lobbying, PI, etc.). This could be mitigated greatly if modified the way law schools and law firms operate.
What the hell makes corporate law or PI work “questionable”? Unless you think those who fall victims to accidents, or corporations, should not be represented.
As for ethical guidelines - well I used to be an investment advisor, and you want an industry crying out for stricter ethical requirements, that is one.
Lawyers are no more greedy, and ethically dubious than any other profession. I work with attorneys all the time, in my employ and in an “adversarial” position.
There are good ones and not so good, they’re just people like the rest of us. Its been my pleasure to know and work with many very talented attorneys.
I can see the Courthouse from my window. ; )
It’s that, but I think it goes further than that. Like murderers getting off who really did it. Like frivolous lawsuits winning millions. Like corporate lawyers burying the little guy under mountains of paperwork until they can’t afford it anymore. Like lawyers crafting labyrinthine contracts, or finding ways to break a contract. Like having a nation that has too many incomprehensible laws.
I don’t think the right to a fair trial rates that highly. It’s not about representing the accused when they are innocent, it’s about acquitting the truly guilty who they KNOW are truly guilty.
I never knew as an attorney I had the power to aquit people. I must have missed that class in law school.
You have the power to argue the case and get an acquittal.
OJ Simpson anyone?
Oh yeah, I forgot the strained literalism in order to make a pedantic point when the intent was clear even if the language was conversational. 
So only factually innocent people should get lawyers? How do we determine which ones are the factually innocent ones are so we can get them lawyers?
It’s naked entitlement powered and reinforced by the greed of leeches, I don’t think it needs a ‘patient zero’, it’s pretty disgusting on it’s face.
I probably have it wrong though, I must feel this way because I was told to by an insurance company lobbyist.
Yes, it is. It most assuredly is. Some of us believe that the goal of the justice system is to ensure that no one innocent is penalized, even if it means 10 guilty perpetrators walk free.
Some of us apparently have different viewpoints.
In response to mswas
Well, other than there being a requirement not to knowingly allow a client to lie, I am intrigued to find out how I would “KNOW” my client was “truly” guilty. (I am also willing to say that based on the evidence presented to the jury at the Simpson trial, I am not sure guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. That seems to be more the result of poor prosecution and determinations by the judge, though.)
Should OJ, as a “truly” guilty man, in your eyes, have not been entitled to a lawyer? Or maybe he should have been required, as a “truly” guilty man, to hire a crap lawyer. Are doctors who save the lives of evil men similarly hated?
But I am not a criminal lawyer, so it doesn’t really affect me.
I’m also amazed at the constant claims of “frivolous” lawsuits netting people “millions.” They don’t tend to be backed up often by references to actual cases.
Many corporate lawyers are grossly overpaid to represent questionable clients. Many PI attorneys are basically ambulance chasers who end up enriching themselves more than their clients. Most are decent people, but many end up doing questionable work.
Completely agreed. In fact, I think a lot of the greedy assholes who would have otherwise been lawyers, went into finance/banking since they could make more money.
Because you say so. Do “questionable” clients get representation? Should lawyers represent them badly? Who makes you the God of who is questionable?
And as for PI lawyers, I assume you intend to step up to the plate and represent low income people who have suffered often horrific injuries against the lawyers of the insurance companies, who, despite the noble intentions people seem in this thread to think that those who cause accidents have, are out to pay as little money as possible to those who have suffered the consequences of negligence? Or are you just going to sit and bitch at those who do represent those people for taking payment for such a service?
Who are you to decide what is grossly overpaid?
"but it would be interesting to know where this disdain for the practice area came from and how it came to be known as “ambulance chasing.” You’re a lawyer?
It’s quite easy. The slime ball PI attorneys here employ people on a commission basis even though its illegal to monitor emergency band radio and show up at accident scenes. They’re called runners. Even those who don’t use runners advertise heavily with misleading ads.
These same attorneys, send their clients to medical providers who service the personal injury business. After the claimant exhausts their personal injury protection limit, they’re discharged and the attorney negotiates a settlement with an insurer.
These kinds of law offices make their money on a high volume of small settlements.
While I agree with your general point, I think you are confusing the issue. People don’t generally have a problem with guilty people being defended, and making the prosecution do their job. They have a problem with people conflating the “best defense” possible with “do any and everything to avoid punishment”.
For example, if I knock over an expensive vase at a friend’s house, my best defense is that it was an accident. Generally, it’s not to deny I did it, while arguing when that if I had I was not at fault because my medication made me disoriented, the owner was negligent to place the vase in a heavy-traffic area, the owner should have insured the item, the owner accepted the risks of me being here when they invited me, the owner is a criminal who bought the vase with ill-gotten money, etc, etc. All of those may be valid points under certain circumstances, but generally don’t come up outside a courtroom.
That’s what pisses people off. When rape trials become about how the victim is a slut, or how the OJ trial became a referendum on race and class. The defense has become more interesting in the goal than the process.
I should have to defend the right to hold an opinion now? They are “questionable” because they often behave in an unethical way at odds with societal values.
Brilliant rhetoric that does not even attempt to argue that points that have been made. In fact, your scenario just illustrates the hurdles some decent PI lawyers have to deal with when they go up against scumbag corporate lawyers. Also, part of the reason people who cause accidents don’t favor honest, open negotiation is because they cannot count on the other side doing the same. The system rewards rational actors who act in an bellicose manner (on both sides).
They are overpaid because nothing in their education, standing, or the work they do indicates that they should be paid that much. The “market” dictates they are paid that much in the same way it dictates that investment bankers, hedge fund managers, and corporate CEOs (all overpaid) get paid the way they are paid. It’s an arms race driven largely by ego, status, and entitlement.
As to rape trials, I would recommend taking a look at the Federal Rules of Evidence, and its counterpart in whatever state you are in. Real trials and The Practice don’t always follow the same pattern.
And as for murder trials, call me a dangerous liberal because I believe that if the state is trying to either kill someone, or put them in prison for the rest of their life, that person should have the right to put on the best defense possible. It’s not a matter of doing “any and everything to avoid punishment.” There are restrictions on what can be done. The judge is there to enforce those limits. What you seem to be expecting the lawyer to do is to not represent his client to the best of his ability - to “dial it back.” And I am not sure where you think lawyers get their information from. They tend not to be present at the crime scene. They tend to rely on what their client tells them happened, and then present it. Oddly enough, there are other lawyers there to present the other side of the argument.
How about the other questions? Should a doctor dial back the treatment for a bad person on the operating table? Do corporations you view as questionable not deserve representation? What determines if someone is grossly overpaid? What line of work are you in, and is your pay rate similarly judged by outsiders?
I’m not asking you to defend the right to hold an opinion. I am just a little nervous about a system where crusaders determine that the good and noble and innocent get represented, but the bad and questionable and guilty don’t. I thought the purpose of the system was to determine guilt or liability, but your rhetoric suggests we can predetermine that, and allocate representation on that basis.
My point is that we have an adversarial system - based on the idea that people work hardest in their own interests, and that if we want the facts of a situation to come out, it is best to have two opposing sides investigate it, rather than one supposedly neutral party. And the lawyers in that system have an ehtical duty to sealously represent their client within the confines of the rules. It’s not my job to wonder whether my client is good, bad, guilty, innocent, moral, immoral, responsible, irresponsible, questionable or pure in your eyes, because frankly, a “justice” system that is based on those calculations would be a despicable one open to prejudice and abuse.
This might be why defense lawyers try to get their clients not to testify in their own cases often.
Yes of course he should be entitled to one. This thread is about why people have a problem with lawyers, I cited some examples. That is all.
I wasn’t even talking about you, and I mentioned many aspects of being a lawyer that affect people outside of criminal cases.
Well there was the McDonald’s coffee lady for instance. No personal responsibility as though a person has a divine right to put hot coffee in their lap and then drive a car. Sounds like her own negligence lead to her injury and not McDonald’s serving the coffee too hot.
Should the burden of proof be on the defendant to prove his or her own innocence?
People have a problem with lawyers representing people who turn out to be guilty, but those people have a right to an attorney. Sounds like a pretty dumbass reason to hate lawyers to me, but hey, everyone’s different, I guess.
I love it when people mention that case. It tends to be that they have read nothing about it other than what the tort deform movement has put out. Tell you what, go away, read up on it, read what actually happened, read the decision, find out what the woman originally asked for from McDonalds, see what happened to the damages after the initial headlines, and then we can talk about it. First clue - the woman wasn’t driving. If you can get such a fundamental aspect of the case wrong, maybe you don’t know as much about it as you think…