The Lawyer's Moral Paradox

[XDU]

The Lawyer's Moral Paradox on JSTOR

Thomas W. Giegerich, The Lawyer's Moral Paradox, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1979, No. 6, Symposium on Law and Ethics (Dec., 1979), pp. 1335-1358

www.jstor.org

The article considers the classic issue of what to do when a lawyer is seriously convinced that their client is guilty of what's accused and how professional ethical concerns may or may not be addressed by either professional association, reputation, and legal penalties. I've posted it here for those unaware of how tricky this issue really is.

How should society handle this? What should we expect lawyers to do when seriously convinced? Of course they should represent their clients nonetheless, but how should a lawyer do so without losing his edge, and how should society identify lawyers who don't keep their edge nevermind what should society do to lawyers who don't keep it?

 

[TheParser]

An attorney should represent only someone whom s/he feels is innocent. Then the attorney can put his/her heart & soul into defending that person.

But I understand if an attorney wants to defend someone who is "clearly" guilty. The attorney will do his/her best to get a good plea deal, for example.

But I do not understand if an attorney tries to get a "clearly" guilty murderer off.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

Attorney has to represent their client no matter what. Even if they think they are guilty. In some case they may be unable to recuse themselves. And htey could be disbarred for not having their clients best interests at heart

that's one thing to keep in mind when people blast attorneys' for making scummy arguments, or statements, they have to.

 

[bomberfox]

Attorney has to represent their client no matter what. Even if they think they are guilty. In some case they may be unable to recuse themselves. And htey could be disbarred for not having their clients best interests at heart

that's one thing to keep in mind when people blast attorneys' for making scummy arguments, or statements, they have to.

An attorney is not allowed to openly lie to the court though. Liar liar kinda made that stereotype fashionable.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

An attorney is not allowed to openly lie to the court though. Liar liar kinda made that stereotype fashionable.

Attorneys don't testify and are not under oath, so what and where would they be lying about? And lying (I'd say more like BSing) and lawyers can go hand in hand in many cases

 

[Grand Mal]

An attorney should represent only someone whom s/he feels is innocent. Then the attorney can put his/her heart & soul into defending that person.

But I understand if an attorney wants to defend someone who is "clearly" guilty. The attorney will do his/her best to get a good plea deal, for example.

But I do not understand if an attorney tries to get a "clearly" guilty murderer off.

Isn't innocence presumed by everyone involved?

 

[TheParser]

Isn't innocence presumed by everyone involved?

Yes.

But an attorney is a human being.

If s/he does not feel confident about a client's innocence, s/he cannot put his/her heart into defending the accused.

 

[bomberfox]

Attorneys don't testify and are not under oath, so what and where would they be lying about? And lying (I'd say more like BSing) and lawyers can go hand in hand in many cases

They are prohibited by standards of conduct

 

[XDU]

An attorney should represent only someone whom s/he feels is innocent. Then the attorney can put his/her heart & soul into defending that person.

But I understand if an attorney wants to defend someone who is "clearly" guilty. The attorney will do his/her best to get a good plea deal, for example.

But I do not understand if an attorney tries to get a "clearly" guilty murderer off.

The problem is law firms advertise themselves to the general public, and innocence is often a gray area in controversial cases where it depends on how you present and interpret facts and the law.

A lawyer is offering argumentation skills to everyone, not just those they want to represent.

 

[XDU]

Isn't innocence presumed by everyone involved?

Authoritatively, yes, but the point of legal representation is distinction between the authority and the representative. A representative might genuinely believe a client screwed up before it's officially established.

A crime is a crime even before it's determined. Lawyers give legal advice for this reason as well - to tell their clients what they should or should not do to remain law-abiding.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

The Lawyer's Moral Paradox on JSTOR

Thomas W. Giegerich, The Lawyer's Moral Paradox, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1979, No. 6, Symposium on Law and Ethics (Dec., 1979), pp. 1335-1358

www.jstor.org

The article considers the classic issue of what to do when a lawyer is seriously convinced that their client is guilty of what's accused and how professional ethical concerns may or may not be addressed by either professional association, reputation, and legal penalties. I've posted it here for those unaware of how tricky this issue really is.

How should society handle this? What should we expect lawyers to do when seriously convinced? Of course they should represent their clients nonetheless, but how should a lawyer do so without losing his edge, and how should society identify lawyers who don't keep their edge nevermind what should society do to lawyers who don't keep it?

I wouldn't have that job no matter what the pay.

 

[Channe79]

The job of the defense attorney is not so much to get his client acquitted as it is to test to see if the State proved there was enough reason to find him guilty. If I was a lawyer and I knew for a fact my client, say, murdered his wife, I would defend him because my job is to create doubt and convince the jury the State didn't prove with enough evidence my client is guilty of the crime. I'd go to bed and sleep well if I won the case because I did my job. If my client was found "not guilty," that means it's the prosecutors and investigators who failed to build a reasonable proof of guilt.