LEGAL ETHICS

• Related question:
  •   The lawyer can defend, get freedom for a criminal and remain silent even when an innocent person is condemned for the offense of the former. Critique this assertion under legal ethics.
  
  
  What is Legal Ethics?
  Legal ethics encompasses an ethical code governing the conduct of persons engaged in the practice of law and persons more generally in the legal sector. It entails principles of conduct that members of the legal profession are expected to observe in their practice. They actually are an outgrowth of the development of the legal profession itself.
  Principles of legal ethics, whether written or unwritten, not only regulate the conduct of legal practice but also reflect the basic assumptions, premises, and methods of the legal system within which the lawyer operates. They also reflect the legal profession’s conception of its own role in the administration of justice. A lawyer is an officer of the court who plays a critical role in upholding the integrity of the legal system. Accordingly, a lawyer must eschew tactics that would promote the successful administration of justice, even while working vigorously to advance the interests of a client.
  Should a lawyer cross-examine an adverse witness in a way that undermines or destroys his testimony when the lawyer believes the witness is actually telling the truth? May he take advantage of the errors of an unskilled opponent? Should he demand a jury trial for purposes of delay when such a trial would have no advantage for his client? These ethical questions may be answered differently in legal systems that operate on different premises. A system in which a lawyer presents a client’s case in the most favorable light permitted by law and in which the court must decide the merits of the case, may well produce different answers than those produced in a system that assigns a higher priority to the lawyer’s duty to the state to assure proper administration of justice.
  
  
  Our Critique: Criminal Defense Lawyers are Justified
  The fundamental duty of criminal defense lawyers is to zealously represent their clients within the bounds of the law. Their duty is not to “do justice”, but to “defend”.  In contrast, the duty of a prosecutor is not to “prosecute”, but to “do justice”. This distinction shows that criminal defense lawyers have an obligation to discredit a witness, a fact, an assertion, evidence; whatever is presented against their clients, if they can within the bounds of the law, even though they know (or may believe they know) it to be truthful or accurate. A criminal defense lawyer will present any viable defense, regardless of one’s personal feelings about its true merit. While they will never knowingly present false testimony, they nevertheless will use true testimony to whatever benefit they can for their client.
  The function of criminal defense lawyers is to defend their clients, no matter how horrific the crime or evil the defendant committed. Their function is to use whatever tools are available under the law to obtain an acquittal, dismissal or the best possible outcome; whether based upon fact or law, whether by capitalizing on a tactical error by the prosecution or by advantage offered the defense. Factual guilt plays no role whatsoever their duty to zealously defend their client. There is never a moral dilemma once a lawyer assumes the duty to defend.  Their function is not to judge, or impose sensibilities of morality, but to “defend”.
  The key to understanding this is the difference between factual guilt (what the defendant actually did) and legal guilt (what a prosecutor can prove). A good criminal defense lawyer does not ask, “Did my client do it?” but rather, “Can the government prove that my client did it?” According to the law, no matter what the defendant has done, he is not legally guilty until a prosecutor offers enough evidence to persuade a judge or jury to convict. However, the defense lawyer may not lie to the judge or jury by specifically stating that the defendant did not do something the lawyer knows the defendant did do. Rather, the lawyer’s trial tactics and arguments must focus on the government’s failure to prove all the elements of the crime.
  In truth, the defense lawyer almost never really knows whether the defendant is guilty of a charged crime. Just because the defendant says he did it does not make it so. The defendant may be lying to take the rap for someone he wants to protect, or may be guilty, but only of a different and lesser crime than the one being prosecuted by the district attorney. Also, a defendant may have done the act in question, but the client may have a valid defense that would exonerate him. For these reasons, among others, defense lawyers often do not ask their clients if they committed the crime. Instead, the lawyer uses the facts to put on the best defense possible and leaves the question of guilt to the judge or jury.
  
  
  Why Lawyers Defend Criminals
  Generally, the public perception seems to be that it is wrong to defend someone who is obviously guilty. However, the legal system which provides judges and defense attorneys are supposed to provide a good criminal defense for a guilty client, and leave it up to the judge to do justice. Although, this explanation is too brief to satisfy most people, to evaluate this issue, we therefore offer this extended explanation of why lawyers defend criminals:
  •   Reason one: to support the legal system
  Legal systems are adversarial and require in criminal cases that a judge and jury be presented with two sides of the argument, the prosecution's case and the defense attorney's case; after which the fact finder decides whether the accused is guilty. Prior to the presentation of facts in court, it is misleading to say that a defendant is obviously guilty. Even to an experienced attorney, a guilty client may look innocent, and an innocent client may look guilty. Some people, for example, confess to crimes that they did not commit; such people need court-appointed counsel to uncover the truth. Lawyers defend criminals, even those ones that look guilty, because our legal system requires that there be a defense.
  •   Reason two: to satisfy one’s ethical duty as a bar member
  Lawyers defend criminals occasionally as court-appointed counsels. In certain cases, the court appoints a member of the State Bar as defense attorney for a particular defendant. In such a case, the attorney offers a criminal defense even if the client is obviously the guilty one, as a matter of duty to the bar. Defending a guilty client in such a circumstance is simply fulfillment of one's duty to the bar.
  •   Reason three: to make money
  Although criminal defense tends to be a less lucrative area of the law, many lawyers defend criminals simply to early good income. The defense attorney will occasionally have an obviously guilty client, just as court-appointed counsel would, but that is just part of the job.
  
  
  Conclusion
  On the whole, it is a good thing that lawyers defend criminals, including those who are obviously guilty. They do so to support the legal system, to satisfy their ethical duty as bar members, and to make money. Working as a criminal defense attorney or as court-appointed counsel to defend a guilty client is a thankless job, but one that is necessary for our society. Conclusively, many attorneys cannot handle the complex ethical balancing that criminal defense work requires. But they are not the villains and liars of the state’s justice system; they actually are its ethical heroes. Their zeal in making sure that citizens only lose their freedom when there is strong evidence to justify it protects all of us, and we owe them our gratitude, and perhaps someday, our lives.
  
  
  
  
    Back to "300 LEVEL- FIRST SEMESTER"
  Back to "ARCHIVES AND RESOURCES"
  Back to "PHILUZOPHY"