Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
28-06-2013, 05:12   #1
Zambia
Moderator
 
Zambia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 6,753
Said no lawyer ever

"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?
Zambia is offline  
Advertisement
28-06-2013, 06:16   #2
smcgiff
Moderator
 
smcgiff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zambia View Post
"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
smcgiff is offline  
(2) thanks from:
28-06-2013, 06:18   #3
jmcc99_98
Registered User
 
jmcc99_98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Westmeath
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by smcgiff View Post
You mean, take responsibility?

No self respecting lawyer would allow that
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
jmcc99_98 is offline  
Thanks from:
28-06-2013, 06:39   #4
smcgiff
Moderator
 
smcgiff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcc99_98 View Post

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'.
smcgiff is offline  
28-06-2013, 08:39   #5
johnnyskeleton
Moderate
 
johnnyskeleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 8,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zambia View Post
"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.
johnnyskeleton is offline  
Advertisement
28-06-2013, 09:07   #6
nuac
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The real west.
Posts: 2,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcc99_98 View Post
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%
nuac is offline  
28-06-2013, 10:22   #7
NoQuarter
Registered User
 
NoQuarter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 4,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by smcgiff View Post
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!?
NoQuarter is offline  
28-06-2013, 10:42   #8
Pro Hoc Vice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zambia View Post
"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.
Pro Hoc Vice is offline  
(3) thanks from:
28-06-2013, 10:43   #9
Pro Hoc Vice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoQuarter View Post
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.
Pro Hoc Vice is offline  
Advertisement
28-06-2013, 11:02   #10
Zambia
Moderator
 
Zambia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 6,753
I have to agree its not the solicitors coming up with the excuses.
Zambia is offline  
28-06-2013, 11:30   #11
smcgiff
Moderator
 
smcgiff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by infosys View Post
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.
smcgiff is offline  
28-06-2013, 11:52   #12
nuac
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The real west.
Posts: 2,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by smcgiff View Post
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
nuac is offline  
28-06-2013, 11:52   #13
Pro Hoc Vice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by smcgiff View Post
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.
Pro Hoc Vice is offline  
Thanks from:
28-06-2013, 12:04   #14
jmcc99_98
Registered User
 
jmcc99_98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Westmeath
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by smcgiff View Post
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
.
jmcc99_98 is offline  
Thanks from:
28-06-2013, 12:57   #15
Cody Pomeray
Closed Account
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,569
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.
Cody Pomeray is offline  
Thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet