#1

"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?

#2

Zambia said:
"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

2 people have thanked this post
jmcc99_98 Registered User
#3

smcgiff said:
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

1 person has thanked this post
#4

jmcc99_98 said:


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'.

johnnyskeleton Moderate
#5

Zambia said:
"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.

nuac Moderator
#6

jmcc99_98 said:
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%

NoQuarter Registered User
#7

smcgiff said:
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!?

#8

Zambia said:
"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.

3 people have thanked this post
#9

NoQuarter said:
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.

#10

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

#11

infosys said:
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.

nuac Moderator
#12

smcgiff said:
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

6 people have thanked this post
#13

smcgiff said:
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.

1 person has thanked this post
jmcc99_98 Registered User
#14

smcgiff said:
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
.

1 person has thanked this post
#15

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.

1 person has thanked this post

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!