Discussion
OK, MrrT, let's suppose I'm a villain, I am guilty, and tell my lawyer this. I instruct him to get me acquitted, despite my private admission of guilt.
He tells me there's no chance of winning.
Should he continue to act for me according to my wishes?
In other words, who is being less moral? Me, because I can't accept wise counsel from my lawyer? Or him, for continuing? Do you truly know the answer in the Charlie Gard case, or are you making an assumption that it's one or the other?
Breadvan72, do you agree that justice is well served by having lawyers that will act on clients' wishes even if their case appears futile?
He tells me there's no chance of winning.
Should he continue to act for me according to my wishes?
In other words, who is being less moral? Me, because I can't accept wise counsel from my lawyer? Or him, for continuing? Do you truly know the answer in the Charlie Gard case, or are you making an assumption that it's one or the other?
Breadvan72, do you agree that justice is well served by having lawyers that will act on clients' wishes even if their case appears futile?
Brave Fart said:
OK, MrrT, let's suppose I'm a villain, I am guilty, and tell my lawyer this. I instruct him to get me acquitted, despite my private admission of guilt.
He tells me there's no chance of winning.
Should he continue to act for me according to my wishes?
In other words, who is being less moral? Me, because I can't accept wise counsel from my lawyer? Or him, for continuing? Do you truly know the answer in the Charlie Gard case, or are you making an assumption that it's one or the other?
Breadvan72, do you agree that justice is well served by having lawyers that will act on clients' wishes even if their case appears futile?
I think you'll find that if you admit your guilt to your lawyer he/she will be unable to represent your 'not guilty' stance any further (BV will confirm?)He tells me there's no chance of winning.
Should he continue to act for me according to my wishes?
In other words, who is being less moral? Me, because I can't accept wise counsel from my lawyer? Or him, for continuing? Do you truly know the answer in the Charlie Gard case, or are you making an assumption that it's one or the other?
Breadvan72, do you agree that justice is well served by having lawyers that will act on clients' wishes even if their case appears futile?
Not according to this barrister's blog:
http://barristerblogger.com/advocacy-tips/ethics/
Perhaps a criminal situation wasn't the best example. My general point was that lawyers have a duty to follow their client's wishes, don't they?
http://barristerblogger.com/advocacy-tips/ethics/
Perhaps a criminal situation wasn't the best example. My general point was that lawyers have a duty to follow their client's wishes, don't they?
Brave Fart said:
Not according to this barrister's blog:
http://barristerblogger.com/advocacy-tips/ethics/
Perhaps a criminal situation wasn't the best example. My general point was that lawyers have a duty to follow their client's wishes, don't they?
Good link: "The alternative to a criminal justice system is a lynch mob, and it is remarkable how readily righteous indignation, often by those who are far from righteous in their own lives, can spill over into orgies of violence. .http://barristerblogger.com/advocacy-tips/ethics/
Perhaps a criminal situation wasn't the best example. My general point was that lawyers have a duty to follow their client's wishes, don't they?
People accused of such things are not always guilty. Arguments rage about how many false accusations there are of such crimes; we simply don’t know, but undeniably there are some. The consequences of being falsely accused do not need spelling out.
But even if they are rightly accused we do not want mobs baying their guilt outside as they lob petrol bombs through the windows, and what is more very often the wrong windows as with the Portsmouth mobthat mistook a respectable paediatrician for a paedophile. We want proper, fair courts where guilt can be conclusively demonstrated."
The books are littered with "open and shut cases" that turned out not to be so open and shut after all. There are two sides to almost every story. A good lawyer should give frank and honest advice to his or her client, and should give the client bad news if the news is bad; but if the client insists on taking a particular course, then so long as the lawyer does nothing to infringe the code of professional ethics he or she should endeavour to achieve for the client what the client wishes.
Contrary to popular opinion, most lawyers are not in the habit of manufacturing facts, misleading courts, and so on. Some lawyers do those things, and those lawyers tend to have reputations amongst other lawyers that are not the sort of reputation you would wish for. They attract a certain type of client and may even do quiet well, but the Shiners of this world sometimes get caught.
Most lawyers whom I know value a good reputation, and some even have ideals about law and justice, and they try to practise ethically (often intense client pressure notwithstanding). Sometimes I think that it would be easier to give up and just be the shyster that the public thinks that I must be anyway, but I'd rather not.
In the criminal law, strictly speaking if the client admits guilt, the lawyer can only put the prosecution to proof, and cannot advance a positive case of innocence. In civil law such dilemmas do not arise. I can say to my client "In my opinion you did break the contract, but it is arguable that you did not and so I will run that argument. I expect it will fail. I may be wrong."
Contrary to popular opinion, most lawyers are not in the habit of manufacturing facts, misleading courts, and so on. Some lawyers do those things, and those lawyers tend to have reputations amongst other lawyers that are not the sort of reputation you would wish for. They attract a certain type of client and may even do quiet well, but the Shiners of this world sometimes get caught.
Most lawyers whom I know value a good reputation, and some even have ideals about law and justice, and they try to practise ethically (often intense client pressure notwithstanding). Sometimes I think that it would be easier to give up and just be the shyster that the public thinks that I must be anyway, but I'd rather not.
In the criminal law, strictly speaking if the client admits guilt, the lawyer can only put the prosecution to proof, and cannot advance a positive case of innocence. In civil law such dilemmas do not arise. I can say to my client "In my opinion you did break the contract, but it is arguable that you did not and so I will run that argument. I expect it will fail. I may be wrong."
Dr Johnson explains:-
Boswell: "But what do you think of supporting a cause which you know to be bad?"
Johnson: "Sir, you do not know it to be good or bad until the judge determines it. I have said that you are to state facts fairly; so that your thinking, or what you call knowing, a cause to be bad, must be from reasoning, must be from your supposing your arguments to be weak and inconclusive. But, Sir, that is not enough. An argument which does not convince yourself, may convince the Judge to which you urge it; and if it does convince him, why, then, Sir, you are wrong and he is right. It is his business to judge; and you are not to be confident in your own opinion that a cause is bad, but to say all you can for your client, and then hear the Judge's opinion."
Boswell: "But, Sir, does not affecting a warmth when you have no warmth, and appearing to be clearly of one opinion, when you are in reality of another opinion, does not such dissimulation impair one's honesty? Is there not some danger that a lawyer may put on the same mask in common life, in the intercourse with friends?"
Johnson: "Why no, Sir. Everybody knows you are paid for affecting warmth for your client; and it is, therefore, properly no dissimulation: the moment you come from the bar you resume your usual behaviour. Sir, a man will no more carry the artifice of the bar into the common intercourse of society, than a man who is paid for tumbling upon his hands will continue to tumble on his hands when he should walk on his feet."
Also:
"Sir, a lawyer has no business with the justice or injustice of the cause which he undertakes, unless his client asks his opinion, and then he is bound to give it honestly. The justice or injustice of the cause is to be decided by the judge. Consider, sir; what is the purpose of the courts of justice? It is, that every man may have his cause fairly tried, by men appointed to try causes. A lawyer is not to tell what he knows to be a false deed; but he is not to usurp the province of the jury and of the judge, and determine what shall be the effect of evidence -- what shall be the result of legal argument. As it rarely happens that a man is fit to plead his own cause, lawyers are a class of the community, who, by study and experience, have acquired the art and power of arranging evidence, and of applying to the points of issue what the law has settled. A lawyer is to do for his client all that his client might fairly do for himself, if he could. If, by a superiority of attention, of knowledge, of skill, and a better method of communication, he has the advantage of his adversary, it is an advantage to which he is entitled. There must always be some advantage, on one side or the other; and it is better that advantage should be had by talents, than by chance. If lawyers were to undertake no causes till they were sure they were just, a man might be precluded altogether from a trial of his claim, though, were it judicially examined, it might be a very just claim."
Boswell: "But what do you think of supporting a cause which you know to be bad?"
Johnson: "Sir, you do not know it to be good or bad until the judge determines it. I have said that you are to state facts fairly; so that your thinking, or what you call knowing, a cause to be bad, must be from reasoning, must be from your supposing your arguments to be weak and inconclusive. But, Sir, that is not enough. An argument which does not convince yourself, may convince the Judge to which you urge it; and if it does convince him, why, then, Sir, you are wrong and he is right. It is his business to judge; and you are not to be confident in your own opinion that a cause is bad, but to say all you can for your client, and then hear the Judge's opinion."
Boswell: "But, Sir, does not affecting a warmth when you have no warmth, and appearing to be clearly of one opinion, when you are in reality of another opinion, does not such dissimulation impair one's honesty? Is there not some danger that a lawyer may put on the same mask in common life, in the intercourse with friends?"
Johnson: "Why no, Sir. Everybody knows you are paid for affecting warmth for your client; and it is, therefore, properly no dissimulation: the moment you come from the bar you resume your usual behaviour. Sir, a man will no more carry the artifice of the bar into the common intercourse of society, than a man who is paid for tumbling upon his hands will continue to tumble on his hands when he should walk on his feet."
Also:
"Sir, a lawyer has no business with the justice or injustice of the cause which he undertakes, unless his client asks his opinion, and then he is bound to give it honestly. The justice or injustice of the cause is to be decided by the judge. Consider, sir; what is the purpose of the courts of justice? It is, that every man may have his cause fairly tried, by men appointed to try causes. A lawyer is not to tell what he knows to be a false deed; but he is not to usurp the province of the jury and of the judge, and determine what shall be the effect of evidence -- what shall be the result of legal argument. As it rarely happens that a man is fit to plead his own cause, lawyers are a class of the community, who, by study and experience, have acquired the art and power of arranging evidence, and of applying to the points of issue what the law has settled. A lawyer is to do for his client all that his client might fairly do for himself, if he could. If, by a superiority of attention, of knowledge, of skill, and a better method of communication, he has the advantage of his adversary, it is an advantage to which he is entitled. There must always be some advantage, on one side or the other; and it is better that advantage should be had by talents, than by chance. If lawyers were to undertake no causes till they were sure they were just, a man might be precluded altogether from a trial of his claim, though, were it judicially examined, it might be a very just claim."
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 2nd August 08:11
PH is generally, it appears, very pro capitalism and all in favour of people being well paid UNLESS those people are lawyers. S,P&L is full of people trying to get freebies and moaning that a lawyer wants to bill them £X an hour (always assuming that X is what the lawyer takes home, forgetting that in reality it will be X minus a bunch of expenses and a big chunk of tax). There seems to be a general assumption that unlike every other type of worker, lawyers should not be paid at all. Except, as in this case, when lawyers do a case for free. Then they get slagged off for doing that.
Good lawyers are indeed expensive. With lawyers, you can have good, or you can have cheap, but you can't have both at once. If you are lucky you can get a free lawyer and pro bono lawyers are quite often the sort of lawyers who if paid for would be very expensive, because they are good. But even expensive lawyers are cheap compared to, say, commercial bankers, and unlike hedge fund and private equity people, lawyers cannot readily hide income and cannot get away with paying unrealistically low amounts of tax. The UK legal industry, which has a world-leading reputation, is a massive invisible export business, and brings in tons of revenue to UK plc. Legal business also generates work for IT firms, commercial landlords, big office cleaners, printing and copying firms, couriers, high end party caterers, even sandwich makers. But despite all this you will be confidently told by PH bloke in pub that lawyers are mere parasites and add nothing of value.
Good lawyers are indeed expensive. With lawyers, you can have good, or you can have cheap, but you can't have both at once. If you are lucky you can get a free lawyer and pro bono lawyers are quite often the sort of lawyers who if paid for would be very expensive, because they are good. But even expensive lawyers are cheap compared to, say, commercial bankers, and unlike hedge fund and private equity people, lawyers cannot readily hide income and cannot get away with paying unrealistically low amounts of tax. The UK legal industry, which has a world-leading reputation, is a massive invisible export business, and brings in tons of revenue to UK plc. Legal business also generates work for IT firms, commercial landlords, big office cleaners, printing and copying firms, couriers, high end party caterers, even sandwich makers. But despite all this you will be confidently told by PH bloke in pub that lawyers are mere parasites and add nothing of value.
I see we are overwhelmed with posts from the great breadvan. All of them seem to be just cake and honey maybe a change of user name is needed.
Getting back to the case i do wonder if the parents had been attempting to have creationism taught in school whether the same pro bono lawyers would have supported them? There is I suggest more evidence for creationism than there ever was for a treatment for the child.
Final!y, was 5 months of court submissions (which involved senior medical professionals having to take days away from serious work, thousands of £ spent by GOSH on legal fees) justified when it was clear from February no treatment was or even could be available. Is the lawyers defence, I was just following orders, sufficient?
Getting back to the case i do wonder if the parents had been attempting to have creationism taught in school whether the same pro bono lawyers would have supported them? There is I suggest more evidence for creationism than there ever was for a treatment for the child.
Final!y, was 5 months of court submissions (which involved senior medical professionals having to take days away from serious work, thousands of £ spent by GOSH on legal fees) justified when it was clear from February no treatment was or even could be available. Is the lawyers defence, I was just following orders, sufficient?
I shall leave the ad hom to you and instead deal with the arguments, not the person, although I am naturally flattered by your obsession with me.
If the lawyers had not argued the case, the parents would have argued it themselves, and the case would have taken longer and cost more. I see lots of litigants in person in the courts. They do not make things quicker and cheaper. These were angry parents, ranting at doctors and the Judge. They would have ranted on and on . The lawyers possibly acted as a brake on the craziness.
What was the system to do? Start care proceedings and remove the parents from the decision making? That would have taken months of legal process as well. GOSH could not just ride roughshod over the opposition of the parents, flawed as that was. The process had to take its course.
If the lawyers had not argued the case, the parents would have argued it themselves, and the case would have taken longer and cost more. I see lots of litigants in person in the courts. They do not make things quicker and cheaper. These were angry parents, ranting at doctors and the Judge. They would have ranted on and on . The lawyers possibly acted as a brake on the craziness.
What was the system to do? Start care proceedings and remove the parents from the decision making? That would have taken months of legal process as well. GOSH could not just ride roughshod over the opposition of the parents, flawed as that was. The process had to take its course.
I'm all for people having faith in whatever God floats their boat but evidently I am one of ''Satan's foot soldiers'' as I questioned much of the madness on the Charlie's Army USA Facebook page. Whether I can put that on my CV or not, I never found out, as I was booted off soon after. 
Breadvan72 said:
But even expensive lawyers are cheap compared to, say, commercial bankers, and unlike hedge fund and private equity people, lawyers cannot readily hide income and cannot get away with paying unrealistically low amounts of tax.
It seems odd for someone who is professionally qualified to make such a bold statement about the tax affairs of others. Seems rather DW or lefty student to me.Have you any evidence to support your claim?
Mrr T said:
It seems odd for someone who is professionally qualified to make such a bold statement about the tax affairs of others. Seems rather DW or lefty student to me.
Have you any evidence to support your claim?
Given that one of the prime objectives of hedge funds and PE is to limit tax liability it's a fair point though. There are many different flavours of commercial banker however.Have you any evidence to support your claim?
Mrr T said:
......... when it was clear from February no treatment was or even could be available. ....
It is only 'clear' with the value of hindsight, at the time the Parents were absolutely convinced there was viable treatment, a belief supported by their 'experts'. GOSH were right to take this back to the court for clarification, and the parents had a right to be represented.Neonblau said:
Mrr T said:
It seems odd for someone who is professionally qualified to make such a bold statement about the tax affairs of others. Seems rather DW or lefty student to me.
Have you any evidence to support your claim?
Given that one of the prime objectives of hedge funds and PE is to limit tax liability it's a fair point though. There are many different flavours of commercial banker however.Have you any evidence to support your claim?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff