How do lawyers do it???

biko wrote: »

Ask OJ's or Michael Jacksons lawyers.

Johnie Cochran died, would be hard to ask him, though with your recent paranormal activity, perhaps not impossible?

If the guilty party doesn't tell the truth (and Solicitors are bound to disclose all information that is in their knowledge), it is hearsay. If the Solicitor suspects, but the person has not said anything indicating that they did in fact commit such and such a crime, they are duty bound to their client.

Everybody is entitled to a defense so as to ensure the real story comes out. It has turned out before that people who looked as guilty as sin turned out to be innocent. As long as the lawyer does everything above board then if he's guilty he will still be convicted and the appropriate sentence will be given.

The only problem I have with lawyers like that is when they get people off on a technicallity when they are obviously guilty.

Lol - yes, money that's why we do it... well still a law student so maybe my idealist view of the world will change once I'm trying to earn above minimum wage as a trainee barrister...could take up to 10 years.

Personally I was shocked that the person in the A case (rape of underage child) was released and re-jailed. Our constitution took a battering there I think. Lawyers/judges are supposed to look at the law and apply it fairly to all (doesn't matter if you're a rapist, murderer or politician - interesting titbit; rapists and politicians are often given special protection in jail as they are regarded as the lowest of the low by even the criminals themselves).

One particular case may seem like a very bad decision i.e. Curtain case or A case (A was rejailed though - public pressure overwhelming senses of judges in my opinion). But looking at the whole picture our legal system is based on the fact that it is better to let a few bad apples get off than to imprison one innocent person. Of course the law is constantly evolving to try and close off loopholes but within reason. This is why we have such principles like right to silence and right to legal representation.

Finally imagine how bad it would look if a lawyer appointed to defend someone refused? The jury would not give a fair trial at all to the accused.

And of course lawyers, being human, are fallible - they are tempted by greed and corruption just like any of us.

If for instance I knew my client was guilty of say murder - I would be obliged to put his/her best case forward - I trust the prosecution to do the same. I could not lie and say he did not commit murder but could provide mitigating factors (I would also be challenging the evidence of the prosecution to make sure the evidence is up to standard). It is up to the jury to decide on the evidence presented the facts of the case, and the judge to decide the sentence. We're all just cogs of the great big legal system.

Finally as a law student - I do not have first hand experience of working as a criminal defence barrister so what we learn in lectures could be quite different to the real world (and sadly it often is).

Stereonick wrote: »

More than likely, the lawyer will steer well clear of drawing out an admission from his client. He will just find out how you intend to plead and then build a case; perhaps advising a different plea if he thinks necessary.

If I was charged with murder and I started to tell my barrister that I had indeed done it, I wouldn't be surprised if he put his hands over his ears and said "na na na I'm not listening"

I have been through the whole legal thing but I don't think I could go on to be a solicitor. Not because I am concerned about ethics or morals, it's just that years of study and exams have left me feeling as if my brain has been rotating in a microwave for a decade. I look forward to a nice simple office job

The solicitor and barrister are completely separate. I'm not sure exactly what the op is referring to but I'm assuming he's on about the whole Hollywood style American courtroom where the lawyer becomes almost possessed and starts ranting and bullying the witnesses. It doesn't actually work like that, well not in Ireland anyway!

This line applies to the role of the barrister,

In criminal matters it is a matter for the jury or the court, not for the advocate for the defence, to decide the guilt or innocence of his client.

I don't see the issue with the line you bolded either.

Stereonick wrote: »

Well my good man, I know they are separate, I did law you know And this is not from an American document, rather an Irish publication about duties of solicitors and barristers. That is exactly how it works over here, if you receive an admission of guilt, you are not to defend that person if they maintain that they will plead innocent.

That line means that it is not the barrister's concern whether his client is guilty or not. He is concerned with arguing his case by however he pleads.

Anyway, the bold type stresses that if a client admits guilt to his barrister and then still persists in pleading innocent, the barrister should refuse to represent him.

I know I quoted you but I was referring more to other posts in this thread where terms like lawyer, solicitor and barrister were being used interchangeably.

I agree with the whole admission of guilt thing aswell, sure I even posted about it before you!

Is there not something in the code of conduct of a barrister which prevents them from refusing a case without good reason?

The fact that the client is perceived to be guilty of murder or other nastiness is not a good enough reason for a barrister to turn down a brief afaik.