A dirty job, but somebody's got to do it

Rashmun wrote:http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/ColumnsOthers/A-dirty-job-but-somebody-s-got-to-do-it/Article1-985887.aspx

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/ColumnsOthers/A-dirty-job-but-somebody-s-got-to-do-it/Article1-985887.aspx

>>>Don't know how binding the resolutions are upon individual lawyers, but an individual lawyer presumably can choose not to represent a client. In fact, this seems like a slippery slope in terms of ethics. I would think the lawyer as an officer of the court cannot in good conscience assert the client's innocence if he knows the facts to be otherwise. It then comes down to either choosing to being in denial of the facts (in a case like this ) or angling to get the client off on a technicality. I think a lawyer would be well within his rights ethically to not want to represent these culprits.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/ColumnsOthers/A-dirty-job-but-somebody-s-got-to-do-it/Article1-985887.aspx

>>>Don't know how binding the resolutions are upon individual lawyers, but an individual lawyer presumably can choose not to represent a client. In fact, this seems like a slippery slope in terms of ethics. I would think the lawyer as an officer of the court cannot in good conscience assert the client's innocence if he knows the facts to be otherwise. It then comes down to either choosing to being in denial of the facts (in a case like this ) or angling to get the client off on a technicality. I think a lawyer would be well within his rights ethically to not want to represent these culprits.

From what I have learned over the years:

A lawyer cannot represent a client/defendant if he believed or know that the person is guilty. For this reason, most criminal lawyers will never ask the dreaded question "Did you do it?" If the defendant acknowledged his criminality, the lawyer will not be wholeheartedly and ethically argue that his client did not commit.

In this Delhi rape case, most lawyers - as most people believe that the defendants are guilty. A court-appointed lawyer may represent the defendant without acknowledging his opinion and without asking the dreaded question - thus dodging the ethical question.

Hopefully Ram Jethmalani did not make any negative comments against the 6 and willing to represent them.

Rashmun wrote:I think a lawyer is obliged to defend a criminal even if he thinks his client is guilty.

Kris wrote:

Rashmun wrote:I think a lawyer is obliged to defend a criminal even if he thinks his client is guilty.

>>>> If he has definite knowledge of his client's guilt, he presumably will have to walk gingerly around his client's actions and keep the discussions limited to legal technicalities such as admissibility of evidence, compromising of witnesses etc. to get his client off. I would imagine this would be a helluva task since he would have no way of knowing the prosecution's tact. Since he cannot argue that his client is innocent (knowing otherwise), I think he can cite that he cannot act in the best interest of the client and therefore get out of any obligation to defend. I don't know the legalities of this and am just guessing here.