What happens if I am a lawyer, and one of my clients comes to me asking to defend him, but, having looked at the evidence, I think that he is guilty as sin?
IANAL, but you do the best damn job you can during the hours of work that you bill your client for, and wrestle with your conscience many a sleepless night, on your own time. The situation you describe is one that someone needs to consider before they take up the profession of lawyer, but once the decision is made, the only responsible option is to handle the situation with profesionalism should it arise.
Even a guilty man has rights which need defense
Yeah, I should have been more specific. It’s assuming this guilty man is pleading innocent, and he wants you to defend his ‘not guilty’ plea.
Ahh yeah.
vance is my housemate… I accidentally posted the OP while logged in under his name.
Even a guilty man who wants to lie to the court and plea not guilty has rights that need defending.
I’ll assume that you are talking about criminal defense work.
As an attorney, you generally have the right to turn a case down. So if you find it morally repugnant to help defend a guilty man, then you don’t have to do it.
On the other hand, there’s no problem (as far as attorney ethics goes) in defending someone you know to be guilty. The defendant is entitled to “put the state to its proof.” The only ethical problem comes up when the defendant wants you to put him on the witness stand to lie.
Keep in mind that attorneys defend guilty people all the time. About a year ago, I helped defend a guy who was clearly guilty. It was just a matter of negotiating with the prosecutors to get the guy as light a sentence as possible.
By the way, in criminal defense practice, basically all your clients are guilty.
If you want to wear a white hat all (most of?) the time, you’re better off becoming a prosecutor.
Also, there’s a big difference between thinking your client is guilty, and knowing they are. You may think your client is as guilty as all hell, but it ultimately doesn’t matter whet you think. Judging your client isn’t your job. Your job is to present his case as favorably as possible to the fact finder, and let them decide if the state has met its burden of proof against your client.
On the other hand, if you know without a doubt for a fact that your client will commit perjury if he testifies, you can’t allow them to do so, and have a duty to withdraw as counsel if he tries to take the stand.
Make sure you get paid up front!
Note that it is perfectly consonant with your ethical obligations to counsel your client to turn himself in or admit liability, as long as, if he rejects that advice, you go along with his decision.
–Cliffy
The system in the United States requires that the state prove its case against an accused beyond a reasonable doubt, to a jury.
I found that the best way to look at this situation is to remember you are not defending the crimes that the person committed. You are defending our system. If defense attorneys were permitted to judge the guilt or innocence of their clients, and choose to provide a less-than-vigorous defense because they believe their client is guilty, then the entire proctection offered by the system is lost. The state no longer has to convince a jury of impartial citizens – all they must do is convince one defense lawyer, and he’ll join the prosecution in convicting him. Who, then, will speak for the accused?
He may be guilty - but there may be an explanation, a mitigating factor, or an affirmative defense to offer. Perhaps the police searched him without good reason. In our society, we are so afraid of becoming a nation where the police could search us on a whim that we accept the occasional failure to convict a guilty man as a price to ensure the cops don’t become all-powerful. The defense lawyer serves the key role in that process, by challenging the state’s evidence and ensuring that it cannot convict without legally-obtained evidence.
A defense lawyer defends our system of jurisprudence…
- Rick
A guilty person, even if they admit to their attorney they are guilty, is entitled to a legal defense.
However, an attorney cannot abet a fraud on the court. So, while the attorney may represent the guilty client they cannot knowingly put their client on the witness stand to say something the attorney knows to be untrue. If the client insists I think the attorney needs to attempt to back out of the case. It’s up to the judge to allow that.
how would you know if he is guilty if he is pleading not guilty
only evidence and the findings of a jury imho can establish this.
and if he is guilty you will not succeed so he wont go free anway and your practice gets a fee…to pay for your golf lessons.
OK, I’m just going to say up front that this question is inspired by an episode of The Practice so get your “that show is ridiculous on legal issues” out of the way before you post because I already know that. There was an episode in the first season where Eugene was defending a purse snatcher who admitted that he did it and intended to lie about it on the stand. Eugene advised the judge that the defendant would testify in the narrative, so that Eugene would not ask him any questions and thus abet perjury. Does this exist as an alternative to withdrawing from the case?
having legal counsel to defend is only required because there is a case made by the “crown” to prosecute
every practice has a litigation section…it is a service to the legal process and is fuelled by fees. some cases plead guilty but still require counsel.
Well, first off, don’t worry about asking if something you saw on The Practice is correct or not. I’m not going to chide or make fun of you, it’s cool.
The duty of candor to the tribunal and the duty of protecting confidentiality are often at odds. If you know your client will commit perjury you have a duty to convince him not to, and if he insists to attempt withdrawl. Withdrawl may not always be permitted or possible, however. Some have argued that the duty of candor should not go so far as to require a lawyer to reveal that his client has committed perjury when the client is a defendant in a criminal case (which would generally be otherwise required). One proposed compromise is allowing the client to testify in narrative, like you saw, so as not to make the lawyer an instument of the perjury. Another is to alow the lawyer to withold evidence of perjury if the perjury is wholly that of his client. So what they showed has at least been proposed in theory. Whether or not it’s ever actually done this way, I couldn’t tell you.
And in cash money. No post-dated third party out-of-state checks. 
As I recall from law school, this is considered acceptable. The attorney may not do a direct examination to elicit perjured testimony, but if the client just shoots it out, I think the lawyer is ok. (Just going by memory here).
In the administrative court where I practice, attorneys are free to ask the judge to do the direct examination of their client or witness. Arguably, this is another way out of the problem.
(standard disclaimer about legal advice)
Everyone is entitled to the best possible defense. True believers will take this a step further and say that the worse the crime, the better defense needed. But some criminals (alleged) will not be getting it from my husband the criminal defense attorney, such as rapists, child abusers, pedophiles, etc. Those are the kind of people he used to prosecute. But the garden-variety criminals are welcome to come on down.
My favorite attorney line from a movie- James Woods in True Believer-
“You want to be a criminal defense attorney? Then know this going in- everybody’s guilty. Everybody.”
Believe it.