Second day of orientation went great! I had two lectures and began my Lawyering Skills class. Many subjects were brought up but one in particular really caught my ear...What is a lawyer? Everyone has their own opinions. Black's Law Dictionary says that a lawyer is "a person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel or solicitor; a person licensed to practice law." However, it never mentioned what is our job. Today, I heard our job summed up as follows:
"Our job is to put our body in between our client and those that will do them harm"When I first heard this description it seemed like I was a bodyguard or "Superman" protecting the innocent. However, the more I thought about it, being a "Superman" figure is not so far fetched. Lawyers have an obligation to their client, no matter what the client has done, to protect them from outside entities that would cause them harm no matter if they act in self-interests or the interests of society. In our professionalism lecture today, we discussed this obligation and its relationship to the client-attorney privilege. The professor's argument was that this obligation is both ethically and morally important; lawyers need to act in their clients best interest, even if it might lead to the court finding a murderer "not-guilty." I tend to agree that we must uphold this relationship no matter the circumstances, but instead of telling you why, I would love to hear from you, the readers. What is your opinion on this issue?
2 comments:
I would agree that the necessity of a zealous defense of one's client is an integral part of the ability for our adversarial system to determine "justice." While some will often try and discredit this with the extreme moral dilemma, such as someone is knowingly and willingly defending a person guilty of committing incestuous acts while violently murdering at the same time, this simply does not represent what my experience has shown me to be an actual concern in real life. Not only are these cases one in a million, lawyers in many cases, are not necessarily obligated to "take a case," especially the majority of lawyers who are in private practice.
Further, those who discredit the need of a zealous defense and the adversarial system itself seem to usually do so while providing only a subjective view of justice; thinking that "it is common sense." If there is one thing my limited experience with the law has shown me, even "common sense" can be open to interpretation, and it is the job of the lawyer to be the one able to translate that common sense into a legal argument, producing a far more objective, though often imperfect, result.
After thinking about your blog post last night, I agree with you that it is a lawyer's job to act in the best interest of their client. As we know it is a lawyer's job to uphold the law, to represent their client ethically within the bounds of law by presenting the facts of their case. Not to be the judge or jury. The Fourteenth Amendment (due process) gives clients the right to; lets shall we say "fight until the verdict is determined." So, like your professor stated a lawyer needs to act in the best interest of their client even if they are the murderer, and are found not guilty...
I think that the attorney still needs to defend his/her client with a proper defense to the best of their ability. Hey, that's what they are being paid to do. However, the lawyer should defend his/her client with the upmost sincerity and integrity. And to not be like the family consigliore, Tom Hagen in the Godfather. That may not mean aiming for a "not guilty" verdict, but instead arguing for lesser punishment types instead of life in prison or even the death penalty. On the flip side it is also the job of the client to be truthful, cooperative, responsive, etc...whatever is laid out in the retainer agreement prior to being represented.
Post a Comment