I’m not sure you put the profession in a positive light with your post.
The client is not “a murderer” until found guilty.
It’s like the old joke about the lawyer that dies and goes to Hell. He asks what he died of. He is told that he died of old age.
“Old age?” he declares. “I’m only thirty seven!”
“Well, sir, according to your billing records, you are two hundred and eleven.”
I have had two lawyers as girlfriends and I automatically rule them out as potential girlfriends these days because it wasn’t a pleasant experience. They were technically ethical but conniving even on a personal level. Oddly enough, my current girlfriend is an Episcopal Priest and there are tons of issues in that profession as well. She is mostly fine and I adore her but she doesn’t speak highly of most of her colleagues at all.
The catch is that most professions have a dark side. I am an IT professional and there is no way way that I would go out with another one any sooner than I would go out with a doctor, police officer, funeral director or lots of others. The baggage and mentality are just too oppressive.
No, I believe an significant amount are though.
I’m using the term “murderer” colloquially of course, not legally.
OJ is a murderer. OJ got away it it. His lawyers were instrumental in that. I find it hard to believe none of his defense lawyers questioned his innocence on a personal level. I think they did a “good job”, but I find the outcome abhorrent.
In those cases what you are defending is the process. You want to make sure that law enforcement/prosecutors do not put people away without having definitive evidence and that they follow the rules. I think defense attorneys can sleep just fine, knowing that they make sure that if someone is found guilty it wasn’t because LE/prosecutors could just phone it in (in theory, at least…).
The fact that not-guilty people have the protections they do is because defense attorneys made sure that even the guilty had those protections as well.
I’m not questioning whether we need defense attorneys or not. We do.
If a defense attorney can get his client acquitted but seeks a lesser sentence instead, has he provided the best defense possible?
I phrased as I did because it is an accurate statement. Getting your client acquitted if possible is, almost by definition, the best defense possible.
Suppose I am a defense attorney, and I am representing a client on a charge of murder. I am aware of some huge flaw in the prosecution’s case that will blow it out of the water. I am as certain as I might be that my client will kill someone else eventually. Are you saying that if I use the flaw to get a reduced sentence instead of an acquittal, I have acted ethically?
Regards,
Shodan
Such a significant amount that the few not-guilty ones should burn with no defense?
Or what about cases where a DA decides to seek a much harsher charge & sentence than is deserved by the actual crime (i.e. Pushing for murder 1 instead of neg homicide)–whatever? Look just because someone is dirty, the law (and reason) still demands shades of grey be recognized.
In this thread I’ve had no particular intention of putting the legal profession in a positive or negative light. Instead, I was trying to express my experiences.thoughts about lawyers’ “honesty.”
I greatly appreciate the role lawyers play in America’s judicial system - which truly contributes to making society run well. IME most non-lawyers really are unaware/ignorant of the legal implications of so many aspects of their day-to-day lives. They only form an opinion when a specific event catches their attention. Moreover, IME most people think in terms of what is right or wrong, moral or immoral… Those concepts are essentially irrelevant to the practice of law. Speaking WAY too generally, in civil cases lawyers are to take a dispassionate view of whether someone was injured, whether a duty was owed by someone, and what the damages were.
In criminal cases, the question is whether a law was violated. As I said upthread, prosecutors have considerable discretion as to whether or not they bring charges, or which charges the pursue.
It is easy to say you dislike defense lawyers. But I bet as soon as you are accused of something - whether or not you think you did something wrong, I bet you get yourself a zealous atty.
Having said all that, IMO we have too many lawyers, and they all have to figure out how to make a living. So they insert themselves into areas where they may not be needed. In many situations, attys are essentially taking a cut out of other peoples’ productive efforts. Lawyers are overly represented in our legislative bodies. Whether it is their desire or society’s, more and more laws and regulations are promulgated, and they are more and more complex. This creates the need for attys to help characterize their clients’ actions as permissible within the thicket of laws.
The current practice of law is becoming more and more of a numbers game. The goal is to bill as much as possible for the least possible work. Don’t take the time to develop the BEST approach. Instead, throw some shit up against the wall. If nothing sticks, fling up some different shit. I see SO MANY young lawyers in really crappy jobs, as contract employers for larger firms. I doubt many folk anticipated such a career when they started law school…
We have moved from a society where there were fewer codified laws, and those were written more generally. Now, we seem to want all duties and rights spelt out with great specificity. That allows for - almost requires - the sort of nitpicking a certain lawyer tends to do in GD.
Yeah, I basically consider a good many lawyers to be essentially whores. But that doesn’t necessarily make them dishonest.
But you don’t want them to defend people that you, without having access to all the evidence and prior to a proper trial, personally think are guilty.
Sounds fair to me.
In that case, I do think you’ll find most lawyers to be “dishonest.” I also think you have a unique definition of “honest.” I would disagree that putting things in the most favorable light and emphasizing my strongest arguments is a lie.
First, I’m again going to say that I think your definition of “honesty” is unique. I consider lying to get a client off to be dishonest. I do not consider working hard for someone (while making truthful statements) to be a dishonest statement or a dishonest action.
Second, I’m going to reframe your question. Is your moral obligation to society to protect them from this one criminal? Or is your moral obligation to society to protect them from a system that can strip people of their lives, liberty, and property like that if it isn’t held in constant check? If the defendant gets free, she may harm someone. If the prosecutorial system is allowed to get lazy, it will harm a lot of people. (and again, this isn’t a question of “honesty” under most people’s definitions. It only becomes a question of honesty when you’ve made an oath or commitment to one of those obligations - in which case, breaking that promise might be dishonest)
Then what is your complaint? A defense attorney who defends a “known” criminal is doing a service to every innocent person by making sure the process is held to a high bar.
That’s something honorable and to be proud of.
My wife and I are both lawyers. I don’t know that I consider either of us “conniving.” It IS very pleasant/useful that we “speak the same language.”
One thing most lawyers value is the specific use of appropriate language, and making sure people agree as to definitions. To a lawyer, it is obvious when someone uses vague language - or “weasel words” - to give themselves a potential out. It is not unusual for a lawyer to request specificity in such situations.
Lawyers also tend to be very aware of what duties are owed. For example, if you sign a contract, you might think it would be nice for the other person to do a certain thing, but if it isn’t spelled out in the contract and isn’t required for some other reason, good luck with that.
Like I said way upthread, tho, many lawyers commit lies of omission. That could certainly be viewed as conniving in a personal relationship. “What are you angry about? You asked me if I slept with your sister, and I said no. That was the truth. In fact, I slept with your best friend.” 
This was in the mid-1980’s and the lawyer was presumably one of the crummiest and cheapest around. But remember: He’d said he would only charge for actual expenses: court filing fees, etc.
I don’t remember exactly what he charged for each unsuccessful call. I had paid him a retainer of $200 (IIRC) and was surprised when it was soon gone. I was timid and a compliant pushover in those days. My present self might have reported him to the D.A. and the Bar Association … and kept calling until I got some satisfaction.
It’s more like “In fact, I left after we had sex. We didn’t sleep together”
If a lawyer on one side calls a lawyer on the opposing side, do they both get to bill the hours?
There is no such animal in the forest, because this statement relies on a certainty that never exists in the practice of law.
There is a lot more to the job of being an attorney—even a criminal defense attorney—than going to trial. As you know, the vast, vast majority of cases never make it to trial. An acquittal is something that is frequently not envisioned by the attorney or the client in a matter. The best defense is one that leaves the client in the best position possible after the resolution of the case.
A huge flaw in the prosecutor’s case is not a guarantee that the jury is going to side with you. The defense attorney’s job is to present the client with the most realistic view of the case, help the client decide how the case should be approached, and then to zealously pursue the outcome that the client hopes for based on the information the attorney has provided. While there are some clients who will choose to go to trial and hope for an acquittal (or a hung jury) even when the odds are strongly against them, many would choose not to.
So yes, in direct response to your question, if you know there’s a flaw in the prosecutor’s case and you can convince the prosecutor of said flaw, you might be able to negotiate a plea agreement that carries a greatly reduced sentence if neither the prosecutor nor your client wishes to risk a trial. Assuming you have fulfilled your client’s wishes in doing so, you have acted ethically. Unless you have a crystal ball that tells you there is no way your client can be convicted if this case goes to trial.
If you have that crystal ball, I’d like to borrow it.
Good example. Lawyer needs to ask the question in a way that it cannot be answered evasively. And ask appropriate follow-up questions when the initial question is evaded.
Can’t tell you how often I have to tell claimants - AND ATTORNEYS - “That is a very fine response to a question other than the one I asked. Now would you care to answer the question I asked?”
A lawyer may know very well what the other side wants to know. But if the other side phrases the questions inartfully, the lawyer is entirely within their rights to respond to the question asked, even if they know that might appear misleading to some.
Also, as I said upthread - agreement on definitions is critical. Statements such as “It depends on what your definition of IS is” are not necessarily nonsensical to a lawyer.
Of course. They are representing - and billing - different clients.