Just in the interests of full disclosure - for those who are perhaps not long-time SDMB readers - I am a former PD, and I left the profession entirely in large measure because it became increasingly difficult to stomach the work.
I salute those that still do it, because it is a necessary - even critical - part of our system of justice. But it’s not for everyone.
I’m late to the thread, but…
…How do soldiers square THEIR job away with their conscience? Isn’t actually killing people just as bad as providing legal defense to killers?
DINSDALE says:
I guess that depends on what type of law you practice, and how much you put of yourself into it, and how important you consider the work you do to be, to yourself, your client, and society.
I hold myself out to be practicing a noble profession because I truly believe that I am. I have no control over the professional motivations of others, regardless of their lines of work. Certainly an argument can be made that the work performed by lawyers – concerning liberty and property interests, and very often of grave import to their clients – is important work. If I am probating a will, am I doing the vocational equivalent of changing a tire? Arguably yes, though it may be of vital import to my client. But if I am arguing a case involving fundamental constitutional rights before the supreme court, am I still changing that metaphorical tire? I don’t think so.
Thank you, I do. If I truly believed I practiced the profession of snakes and “whores,” I would find another line of work. As long as their is ONE honest lawyer, attempting to do a good day’s work for a day’s pay, then the profession is worth fighting for.
See, and I do, precisely because the system does require it, and somebody has to do it, and it ain’t going to be me. Especially if the client’s sin is only stupidity, as opposed to wrongdoing. Oh, and I would draw a clear distinction between civil law and criminal law here; the system does not require counsel for civil wrong-doers, only for criminal defendants charged with a felony.
Bad analogy. What “plumbing system” is that?
You seem to think very poorly of your own profession, which of course you are free to do. But I don’t think you really have the right to require others to do the same. I personally reject such cynicism in part because I do not do my job entirely for a paycheck, just one more whore down in the muck. I do it (for shit pay, by the way) because I enjoy it, I’m good at it, and because I truly think I do some good. So do not mistake my position for naivete; I know many people feel as you do about lawyers and about our profession, but I am not required to share that opinion, and I do not.
I would imagine you could find that out pretty easily, as it devolves down to the number of felony criminal cases filed versus the number of civil cases. The latter no doubt vastly outnumber the former. But so what? Are you saying that a case in which the issue can be measured in terms of money is automatically an unworthy case? What about the child hit by a drunk driver, seeking medical costs and future damages? What about the people who stand to lose their house because the builder did such a shoddy job of building it? What about the adult child attempting to hold a nursing home accountable for the mistreatment of his elderly parent? What about the supervisor whose professional reputation is at stake because a vindictive employee has wrongfully accused her of sexual harassment? But hey, it’s just dollars, right? Yes, there are frivolous cases, but most cases are not. Yes, there are cases that we, who see cases every day would consider unimportant, but they are almost always very important to the parties.
These are all things you yourself can look up, if you care to. Personally, I see the inside of a courtroom about four times a year for major trials, and the inside of an administrative court about twelve times a year, when I preside as an administrative law judge.
Those of us who work in the public interest, and believe we work for the public good, have every right to say that we do. Not everyone is a sleazy corporate lawyer.
Well, of course it does. Who has argued that it doesn’t? My point is that not every lawyer or, in my experience, even most lawyers, are scum-sucking money-grubbers who falsely exhalt their profession while pursuing the almighty dollar. Obviously, you mileage may vary and, it seems clear from your posts, it apparently does. But if I had as low an opinion of our profession as you seem to, I’d find another line of work. I’d rather wait tables and hold my head up than consider myself part of a professional fraternity (or sorority) I can neither defend nor respect.
Hijack mode:
Actually, there are numerous public health issues within the plumbing career field. As a former plumber in the Air Force I had occasion to learn more than just the toilet fixing aspects of the job. There is a large area of plumbing under the heading of Backflow Prevention that requires certification and quite a bit of knowledge, especially within industry, where tiny amounts ofchemicals slipping into the potable water system can be fatal to many people. Together with that, water treatment and stringent codes as to exactly how both water and sewer pipes are installed also act to make sure that the water you drink isn’t contaminated with biological or chemical agents that will cause you harm. Improper venting of waste lines or a cross connection can make you sick enough to kill you. An improper installation of a pressure relief valve on a water heater can cause an explosion that will decimate your house and the occupants within. Sure, most plumbers just unstop your sink, but the integrity of the plumbing system, if seriously breached, can kill in droves.
Hijack mode off.
Let me second Jodi on pretty much everything she had to say in her last post.
Defending “guilty” clients is a difficult (and judging from this thread, thankless) job. It is, however, vitally important. We would never know the parameters of our rights under the Constitution but for attorneys defending presumptively guilty clients. (I’m guessing Miranda was guilty. What do you think?)
It is usually in cases involving “guilty” clients that lawyers asserting “technicalities” are able to deliniate limits on the ability of the government to intrude in our everyday lives. Without such lawyers we would never know, for example, that a police officer cannot stop and search people randomly, but must have “probable cause” to believe a crime has been committed. Find “probable cause” in the Constitution. You can’t. The phrase got defined in a case where the defendant involved was undoubtedly guilty, and asserting the “technicality” of a wrongful search and/or arrest.
My own scruples would keep me from doing this job, as I stated in my earlier post, but I am still appreciative that there are people like Jodi who are willing to assert the rights the rest of us sometimes take for granted. (And Jodi, I did not intend to attack denigrate you in my earlier post; I only meant to bring some more depth to the discussion.)
Do the guilty sometimes go free? Yes. And that would give me pause, particularly in cases involving violent crime. Doesn’t change the fact that these individuals are entitled to representation, or that our system would suffer if it were not somehow provided.
PTALIS – I hope you know that I did not mean to denigrate the profession of plumbing; I know it is important, subject to certification, and that a good plumber is a credit to his profession. Heck, every time I flush the toilet I thank a plumber! (Well, no, not really, but you know what I mean.) 
Well, thanks, but let me clarify: I am not a public defender. I interned at a PD office in law school and knew by the end of the term I could never do the work as a career. I am a civil defense attorney employed by the State (either screwing the little people on behalf of The Man or defending the taxpayer from those who would exploit the system – take your pick).
And, Spoke, I never felt attacked in any way, by anyone, and I hope no one has felt I have attacked them. I’ll admit that I get tired of our profession being painted as nothing more than a buch of sleazebags, and I feel obligated to object to that characterization when I can, but it isn’t personal – if it was personal I’d have expired of impotent anger a long time ago.
Soon after Kramer vs. Kramer was nominated for an Academy Award, Saturday Night Live put on a sketch titled, “Kramer vs. Godzilla”, involving a courtroom child custody battle between Dustin Hoffman and a giant fire-breathing lizard.
Even if you did, it wouldn’t bug me. I hated being a plumber, which was why I got out after my term was up. I just meant to show that his analogy wasn’t all that bad if you looked at plumbing as a whole. Heck, I know that most folks only see plumbers as “turd herders” or ruthless price gougers. But then again, plumbers don’t have bumper stickers like:
99% of the lawyers out there make the rest of us look bad!
(That’s on the JAG’s car by the way.)
The thing that gets me is not so much that guilty people get off; it’s that they can buy their way out of jail. Sure, the race card helped OJ get off, but it was mostly his multi-million dollar defense team that did the job. If you’re rich, you can basically do anything you want, and unless you’re really stupid, all you need to do is throw some money at some lawyers to make the consequences go away. Sure, there are exceptions, such as the recent tobacco lawsuits, but that’s only because the vast majority of public opinion has turned against them so intensely. Before that, Big Tobacco could throw money at lawyers and claim that tobacco was no more addictive than gummi bears with a straight face. Of course, if you don’t have that kind of money, they’re gonna throw the book at you, and they won’t miss. If you’re poor, the prosecutor can play the race card against you. My point is that in the court system today, it doesn’t really matter whether you’re innocent or guilty. That’s just an irrelevant piece of trivia. The main thing that matters is how much you can pay. It’s the Golden Rule, folks; he who has the gold makes the rules.
Good for you, jodi! I wish you no end to everything good that came come to someone. I’m sure you are a very fine lawyer. And I don’t think I ever suggested that was a fictional species. Your posts here certainly strike me as a bit sanctimonious. But hexck, that’s your option. And that’s only my opinion.
I’m sorry if you misread anything I posted as suggesting that I would presume to “require” that anyone think one way or the other about just about anything.
I’m also sorry if you misread anything I posted as suggesting “every lawyer or even most lawyers” exhibited any particular characteristics. I tried very hard to include a tremendous number of qualifiers. I think I might have set a record for the number of times I used “many”, “I suspect”, “often”, “IMO”, etc. MANY of your responses, IMO, strike me as being stated SOMEWHAT MORE universally. You also SEEM to TEND TOWARDS RATHER extreme examples, IMO
I’m also sorry if you thought I was asking you for any statistics. Repeat after me: “Rhetorical questions do not anticipate an answer.” No, I have no interest in seeking statistical confirmation of my experience. I’ll spend my time on more enjoyable things, thank you. Have fun in the courtroom and the administrative hearings. Today I’m filing a brief in the 7th Circuit, where I’ll be arguing another case in 2 weeks. Tote that barge, lift that bale.
Also sorry if my use of the second person when describing corporate lawyers caused you to interpret that as directed either at you or any other public interest lawyers.
Oh yeah, I think plumbers should be required to perform pro bono work to become acquainted with the plumbing problems of the poor. Mandatory pro bono and bar membership = taxation.
IMO, both your responses and mine say there are some good lawyers and some bad ones. In fact, I’m not suggesting that the “workmanlike” lawyers are bad. I just think they are performing a necessary function. Hopefully they perform it competently.
I think it is somewhat unfortunate that our system is fashioned such that lawyers are required in so many relatively routine, and not necessarily adversarial events/transactions.
Um…
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides:
Upon that standard of proof was built all the decisional law regarding searches, both with and without warrants.
Well, he was retried by Arizona without the confession, and still convicted.
DINSDALE – Thanks! Your posts strike me as a bit puzzling, in that the reflect a singular lack of respect for the profession you yourself practice, but, heck, that’s your option, and only my opinion.
What? I’m wrong about that?
Well, so were you.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but each and every one of the lawyers who post on this board is an articulate, interesting, thoughtful person who seems both compassionate and kind. This is true of almost all of the lawyers I know personally.
As to “money grubbing whores”, I myself (and, I suspect, most of the people who post here) have rarely, if ever, made a career or economic decision where increasing the aquisition of money and decreasing its expenditure was not a primary criterion. To quote Joe Haldeman, “I may prostitute my art, but at least I’m not a cheap whore.”
One must remember that the State is not an innocent or altruistic institution; despite its apparent necessity, the State constitutes a threat vastly more severe than any merely human “monster” (e.g. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Serbia ad nauseum). We perhaps take for granted the relatively uncorrupt operation of our criminal justice system, due in no small part to the vigilant efforts of both public and private defense attorneys who compel the State to prove each and every action against an individual.
OJ was not aquitted because he had a lot of money, rather because the case was investigated by a provably racist detective, the evidence was poorly handled and analyzed and the prosecution ineptly presented its case. Yes, a rich defendant will perhaps receive a more vigorous defense, but I would venture to guess that Mr. Bricker has won a fair number of cases representing the poorest of defendants. The laws specifically targeting the relatively benign activities of our poorest citizens (especially the drug laws) constitute a much greater oppression than supposed inequalities in the courtroom.
Are some people here saying someone who is clearly guilty has no right to legal defense? I hope not.
Obviously if the lawyer is trying to cause a miscarriage of justice in having a guilty man acquitted that would be unethical. But even a guilty man (and he is only guilty once the jurors find him guilty) deserves legal assistance as the law has many complexities. Maybe it is a job I would not like to do myself but someone’s got to do it.
How about firms that sell provision to jails to feed and dress and house the guilty inmates? Are they doing anything wrong? Heck, they are feeding murderers!
Even a murderer is entitled to certain services he needs and the services of a deffense attorney come in very high on the list of priorities. I cannot see in any way how anyone can have a problem with that. I wouldn’t want to do it myself but I wouldn’t like to be a cop either and we sure need them too.
The print on my pocket-sized copy of the Constitution is exceedingly small. The phrase “probable cause” is in the Constitution. Surprisingly, I have not yet memorized the text, either. (This will teach me to spout off without double-checking my facts.)
Anyway, the point I’m making is still valid. Our Constitutional rights have been delineated through Supreme Court decisions which would never have been rendered except for appeals filed by “guilty” defendants. (Bricker, you get bonus points if you can find the phrase “Terry stop” in the Constitution. ;))
Jodi, I made the mistake of assuming that you were doing criminal defense work judging from your passion on the subject. I admire your advocacy.
As a follow-up for anyone who’s interested, here’s a cite for the case I mentioned earlier, about the defence lawyer who was charged with obstruction for failing to disclose to the Crown the existence of certain video-tapes in the Bernardo case: R. v. Murray.
I’ve not read it in detail, but the judge seems to have held that in Canadian criminal law, there is a duty to turn over, in certain cases.
He nonetheless acquitted the defence lawyer because there had been uncertainty in the law, and the defence lawyer had testified that he thought he could use the tapes to to cross-examine the co-accused, but only if the Crown was not aware of them in advance. The judge ruled that there was a reasonable doubt about the defence lawyer’s intention to obstruct justice.