Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Said no lawyer ever

  • 28-06-2013 4:12am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭


    "My client has no reason for his/her offending. They just felt like it."

    After a few days in court it appears every criminal act is the result of drugs , drink , mental illness , family abuse etc

    Does anyone just say yeah you got me I did it because I wanted to?


«1

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    Zambia wrote: »
    "My client has no reason for his/her offending. They just felt like it."

    After a few days in court it appears every criminal act is the result of drugs , drink , mental illness , family abuse etc

    Does anyone just say yeah you got me I did it because I wanted to?

    You mean, take responsibility?

    No self respecting lawyer would allow that :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 532 ✭✭✭jmcc99_98


    smcgiff wrote: »
    You mean, take responsibility?

    No self respecting lawyer would allow that :pac:

    It is not the lawyer who decides what way to plead. It's the client. If a client wants to put his hands up and say he did it any lawyer will be happy to do so. It makes no difference to the lawyer.

    So less of the stereotyping


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    jmcc99_98 wrote: »

    So less of the stereotyping

    Is it not becoming more of a trend, even in the free legal aid arena, that clients are starting to choose their lawyers. For this reason I'd imagine there'd be an incentive to be seen to 'win'.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Zambia wrote: »
    "My client has no reason for his/her offending. They just felt like it."

    After a few days in court it appears every criminal act is the result of drugs , drink , mental illness , family abuse etc

    Does anyone just say yeah you got me I did it because I wanted to?

    Usually if there is no excusing circumstance the lawyer will just say nothing as to the motivation for the offence.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,769 Mod ✭✭✭✭nuac


    jmcc99_98 wrote: »
    It is not the lawyer who decides what way to plead. It's the client. If a client wants to put his hands up and say he did it any lawyer will be happy to do so. It makes no difference to the lawyer.

    So less of the stereotyping

    Agreed 100%


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭NoQuarter


    smcgiff wrote: »
    Is it not becoming more of a trend, even in the free legal aid arena, that clients are starting to choose their lawyers. For this reason I'd imagine there'd be an incentive to be seen to 'win'.

    Absolutely not. A lawyer never chooses how their client would plead. They would be opening themselves up to being liable if things went wrong, now why would they do that!?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Zambia wrote: »
    "My client has no reason for his/her offending. They just felt like it."

    After a few days in court it appears every criminal act is the result of drugs , drink , mental illness , family abuse etc

    Does anyone just say yeah you got me I did it because I wanted to?

    If a lawyer/defendant is saying it was drink drugs etc. then he making a plea in mitigation in other words in the vast majority of such cases the person has pleaded guilty. Now it is the job of the state to put the facts of the offence before the judge and the job of the Defence solicitor or barrister to put the facts of the guilty persons history and reason for offending before the judge. Then it's the judges job to weigh up all the information. It's called justice that thing most people in this country think should only be for them not others.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    Absolutely not. A lawyer never chooses how their client would plead. They would be opening themselves up to being liable if things went wrong, now why would they do that!?

    100% correct its amazing how many people don't get this very simple fact.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    I have to agree its not the solicitors coming up with the excuses.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    infosys wrote: »
    100% correct its amazing how many people don't get this very simple fact.

    Yes, Solicitors, barristers, advocates wouldn't be known to break rules, especially of late.

    Which is the exact opposite of the conversation I had with a couple of lead partners in a large Dublin law firm within the last two months. But, shure, what would they know.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,769 Mod ✭✭✭✭nuac


    smcgiff wrote: »
    Yes, Solicitors, barristers, advocates wouldn't be known to break rules, especially of late.

    Which is the exact opposite of the conversation I had with a couple of lead partners in a large Dublin law firm within the last two months. But, shure, what would they know.

    Not too many lead partners in large Dublin firms offer their services to defendants in the District Courts


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    smcgiff wrote: »
    Yes, Solicitors, barristers, advocates wouldn't be known to break rules, especially of late.

    Which is the exact opposite of the conversation I had with a couple of lead partners in a large Dublin law firm within the last two months. But, shure, what would they know.

    Yes lawyers so clever they get to partner in a large firm and admit wrong doing to another person. If you have evidence of a lawyer breaking the law or breaching serious rules of the law society or law library take it to the relevant authorities. I know of no lawyer that would tell any client how to plead and I know more than a couple in a large firm in Dublin.


  • Registered Users Posts: 532 ✭✭✭jmcc99_98


    smcgiff wrote: »
    Yes, Solicitors, barristers, advocates wouldn't be known to break rules, especially of late.

    Which is the exact opposite of the conversation I had with a couple of lead partners in a large Dublin law firm within the last two months. But, shure, what would they know.


    Break the rules? what you are saying makes no sense. If a client says they are guilty, why in god’s name would the lawyer try to plead otherwise?

    I don’t know of any barrister who would ignore the plea of the accused, or try to change the plea of the accused. It makes no sense. A huge amount of the work is done legal aid, so the fee would be no different.

    I think you may have "heard" a few stories and decided to jump to a stupid and ignorant conclusion.

    It makes absolutely no sense for a barrister to try to change the plea of an accused, it is of no financial benefit and could be professionally very damaging for the barrister

    If the accused hasn’t told the barrister what he wants to plead (It is entirely the accused’s decision) then the barrister will listen to what the accused has to say about the alleged offence and he can then advise on whether he is likely to be found guilty or not, but his advice on whether he is likely to be found guilty or not is based on whether the facts satisfy the requirements for liability under the statute/law.


    I can only speak from a barrister's point of view, but I have no doubt solicitors have similar professional standards
    .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    How can a court be blind to the unjust nature of society?

    Most petty crime, repeat offenders are from disadvantaged backgrounds. How many well adjusted children of academics, school-teachers, company directors are regularly pulled before the courts?

    Even barristers' children tend to avoid this fate, so you know it must usually be reserved for the truly doomed.

    Personally I think deprivation of their liberty for people who have already been deprived of a decent start at life is a ridiculous solution (an expensive way of making bad men worse), and I don't see any reason why the courts should not take account of this, and I don't feel any surprise that the courts are having to take account of this so very often.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    How can a court be blind to the unjust nature of society?

    Most petty crime, repeat offenders are from disadvantaged backgrounds. How many well adjusted children of academics, school-teachers, company directors are regularly pulled before the courts?

    Even barristers' children tend to avoid this fate, so you know it must usually be reserved for the truly doomed.

    Personally I think deprivation of their liberty for people who have already been deprived of a decent start at life is a ridiculous solution (an expensive way of making bad men worse), and I don't see any reason why the courts should not take account of this, and I don't feel any surprise that the courts are having to take account of this so very often.

    What is the alternative, bear in mind people tend to get a few chances before being locked up.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Zambia wrote: »
    What is the alternative, bear in mind people tend to get a few chances before being locked up.
    What is the alternative is what I would ask you. I think it's entirely appropriate that the court consider the social context, and this tends to happen, as your OP suggests.

    Obviously I still think there is too much reliance on the prisons over rehabilitative alternatives, but that is generally a political matter moreso than something the legal professions can correct.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    What is the alternative is what I would ask you. I think it's entirely appropriate that the court consider the social context, and this tends to happen, as your OP suggests.

    Obviously I still think there is too much reliance on the prisons over rehabilitative alternatives, but that is generally a political matter more so than something the legal professions can correct.

    In relation to your first point you have a point but when every offender claims these defences you start to become jaded. The fact is there are several people on drugs and with mental illnesses who do not rob and steal.

    I would put it to you that prison is the option the court utilises when you basically just don't get it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Zambia wrote: »
    when every offender claims these defences you start to become jaded.
    Well I'm sorry that you find patterns of social injustice being laid bare in the country's courtrooms so tedious, but the courts have an right - if not a moral obligation - to hear of any manner in which an accused may have been denied an opportunity to enjoy all of the benefits of membership of society, and which might explain his behaviour.

    If a man was denied those opportunities, are there ways in which a court can address this inadequacy?

    Often, the answer is No, and the manacled individual is walked into to prison and walked out and nothing ever changes. But sometimes district judges can be innovative and versatile in their judgements, and there can be an opening for addressing a deficiency in a person's development.

    Obviously, if someone's attitude to crime is lock em up and throw away the key, they will never be satisfied by any socially responsible criminal justice system.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    infosys wrote: »
    Yes lawyers so clever they get to partner in a large firm and admit wrong doing to another person. If you have evidence of a lawyer breaking the law or breaching serious rules of the law society or law library take it to the relevant authorities. I know of no lawyer that would tell any client how to plead and I know more than a couple in a large firm in Dublin.

    Now, where did I say that M'lud? Of course they weren't involved in it (or admit it). They were pointing out the environment they had to work in.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭NoQuarter


    smcgiff wrote: »
    Now, where did I say that M'lud? Of course they weren't involved in it (or admit it). They were pointing out the environment they had to work in.

    I'll be over to your forum to do the same trolling you're doing here shortly.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    nuac wrote: »
    Not too many lead partners in large Dublin firms offer their services to defendants in the District Courts

    I seem to be conversing in a different language. Did I say they did?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    I'll be over to your forum to do the same trolling you're doing here shortly.

    Sorry, didn't realise it was a closed shop. Carry on...

    Btw, feel free to drop by any time you want.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    Well I'm sorry that you find patterns of social injustice being laid bare in the country's courtrooms so tedious, but the courts have an right - if not a moral obligation - to hear of any manner in which an accused may have been denied an opportunity to enjoy all of the benefits of membership of society, and which might explain his behaviour.

    So if a person suffers a social injustice (what is that exactly?) they have a right to commit crimes against others?

    I am all for rehabilitation and leniency just don't be claiming to be the victim in court when outside the court you saw no need to consider your own victims.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭NoQuarter


    smcgiff wrote: »
    Sorry, didn't realise it was a closed shop. Carry on...

    Btw, feel free to drop by any time you want.

    Thanks, because I have a few "conversations" with some big 4 partners about cookin' da books to troll about myself.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    Thanks, because I have a few "conversations" with some big 4 partners about cookin' da books to troll about myself.

    Good, because I'm sure it happens and the more it is exposed the better.

    I've been accused of sterotyping and trolling. I have done neither in my opinion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭NoQuarter


    smcgiff wrote: »
    I've been accused of sterotyping and trolling. I have done neither in my opinion.

    Sure we'll plead guilty for you anyway!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Zambia wrote: »
    So if a person suffers a social injustice (what is that exactly?) they have a right to commit crimes against others?
    No, if they had a right to do so, there would be no reason to prosecute or find them guilty.

    I don't think you are implying that these individuals' legal representatives raise their clients' backgrounds in order that a finding of innocence be made.

    No, instead these arguments are often raised in order to explain a personal deficiency on behalf of the client, which might best be rectified in some way other than, for example, imprisonment. In no way does this situation imply or necessitate that any individual has a 'right' to commit a crime.
    I am all for rehabilitation and leniency just don't be claiming to be the victim in court when outside the court you saw no need to consider your own victims.
    The solution to the question 'why did this man disregard his own victims' may well be what a solicitor or barrister may be trying to impress upon a judge who is about to hand down a sentence. There's no point in ignoring that question, walking your man into prison, and abandoning him there whilst hoping it all works out for the best. To do so is willingly to put one's head in the sand, not that the courts have a great deal of choice anyway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 532 ✭✭✭jmcc99_98


    Trolls gonna troll


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    jmcc99_98 wrote: »
    Trolls gonna troll


    Where did I Troll? I made a flippant comment at the start, because from the odd heading of the thread I didn't realise it was the legal forum.

    I stand by the comments I related from the partners. If this is news to you or in general then sorry.

    As has been pointed out the accounting profession has taken a battering of late due to certain business people.

    Perhaps said partners shouldn't have mentioned what they did to someone outside the profession. And if I ever meet them again I'll be sure to pass on the boards.ie legal forum's disapprobation.

    And to prove I'm not trolling I'll happily not post here again, unless someone makes reference to my post as I reserve the right to reply.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Zambia wrote: »
    "My client has no reason for his/her offending. They just felt like it."

    Does anyone just say yeah you got me I did it because I wanted to?
    Saying something like this would not be looked on favourably by a Judge. Lawyers have a duty to do their best for their clients within the law, so this wouldn't be the way to go.
    Zambia wrote: »
    After a few days in court it appears every criminal act is the result of drugs , drink , mental illness , family abuse etc

    Yeah, I agree with you. It's like a conveyer belt.

    At the District Court recently, there was a solicitor with a particularly deadpan delivery. He had several consecutive clients who were on their first possession of cannabis charges. Each was pleaded out with something along the lines of:

    "He's young, he's very sorry, he won't do it again, he has no previous convictions, he plans to travel (to Australia) and he'd appreciate the opportunity of keeping his record clean."

    The Judge fixed this solicitor with a disapproving look and stated that it was the same story all of the time and that it wasn't good enough that these guys chose to have cannabis if they planned to travel.

    The solicitor agreed with him and then went on to present his next case in the exact same deadpan fashion. The Judge just gritted his teeth and got on with it.

    Each Defendant got the Probation Act.


Advertisement