3 answers
1
Question
Asked
161 views
How do lawyers mentally reconcile the clash between their obligation to their clients and their own morals in relation to getting true justice in the case that their client is unfavorable? Is there any case in which they would be able to intervene? #Spring26
I'm a 17-year old high school senior who will be majoring in Political Science at a 4-year university. I'm really considering pursuing a career in law, and I'm wondering how people deal with the ethical aspects of it.
Login to comment
3 answers
Updated
DENNIS A’s Answer
Hi Kira: Kim's answer is exactly on point. The prosecutor must prove the case and the defense must create doubt. As one Judge once told my class, it's the lawyer's job to make sure the police are doing their jobs correctly. As kim points out, there are a ton of rules that all lawyers must follow. Those rules are hard to follow sometimes.
Best way to think of this, if someone comes into your office - or your boss comes into your office - and you do not feel comfortable with the case - refuse to take it. Yes refuse. Remember, it is your license on the wall, not the boss's or the client's, if you think a case is going to cause ethical issues just refuse it. It may cost you your job but at least you will be able to look yourself in the mirror the next day.
Remember - as a lawyer You are a professional. Exercise your judgement as a professional and stand up and fight for the things you think are important.
Good luck!
Best way to think of this, if someone comes into your office - or your boss comes into your office - and you do not feel comfortable with the case - refuse to take it. Yes refuse. Remember, it is your license on the wall, not the boss's or the client's, if you think a case is going to cause ethical issues just refuse it. It may cost you your job but at least you will be able to look yourself in the mirror the next day.
Remember - as a lawyer You are a professional. Exercise your judgement as a professional and stand up and fight for the things you think are important.
Good luck!
Updated
Cyrus’s Answer
That's one of the most real tensions in the legal profession, and the fact that you're thinking about it at 17 tells me you'll take the ethical side of this career seriously. The good news is you do have a choice, as a legal professional, if a case genuinely conflicts with your morals, you generally have the ability to decline it and allow the client to seek other counsel, and there's no shame in that. However, if you're in it, the law actually gives you a framework to lean on: your obligation is to provide the best possible counsel to achieve the best outcome for your client, but always within the rules and ethical standards of the profession, and that boundary is what separates advocacy from misconduct. Most lawyers find peace with the hard cases by remembering that the system itself depends on everyone having competent representation, and your job isn't to be the judge, that's someone else's role. You're there to make sure the process works fairly. It's not always comfortable, but that structure is what keeps it from becoming personal.
Updated
Kim’s Answer
Kira,
In the United States, ALL defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It doesn't matter if they were "Caught in the act." It is the job of the prosecutor to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the crime did in fact occur and the defendant in fact committed it. It is the job of the Prosecutor to overcome any doubts raised by the Defense attorney. If the defendant is acquitted, it is because the Prosecutor failed to put on a strong case.
Read the previous paragraph again. Whatever happened is not because the Defense attorney got the defendant acquitted. It is because the Prosecution failed to get them convicted. If you want to go into criminal law, especially criminal defense, you need to understand that. If the acquitted defendant, who was on trial for murder, goes out and murders again, the Defense attorney is not to blame.
Defense attorneys, as officers of the court, have lots of rules they must follow. So long as they follow those rules, they should have a clear conscience. The defense attorney, while operating within the confines of these rules, is supposed to zealously advocate for their client. That is the nature of our legal process.
From the outside looking in, it looks horrible! But, imagine that you were arrested for a crime you did not commit. Did the police plant evidence? Did they read you your rights? Did they physically take you into custody before they had enough grounds to arrest you? Were you court appearances held on time? Were you denied your right to counsel after requesting it? Don't you want someone asking all these questions on your behalf?
I hope this helps!
Kim
In the United States, ALL defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It doesn't matter if they were "Caught in the act." It is the job of the prosecutor to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the crime did in fact occur and the defendant in fact committed it. It is the job of the Prosecutor to overcome any doubts raised by the Defense attorney. If the defendant is acquitted, it is because the Prosecutor failed to put on a strong case.
Read the previous paragraph again. Whatever happened is not because the Defense attorney got the defendant acquitted. It is because the Prosecution failed to get them convicted. If you want to go into criminal law, especially criminal defense, you need to understand that. If the acquitted defendant, who was on trial for murder, goes out and murders again, the Defense attorney is not to blame.
Defense attorneys, as officers of the court, have lots of rules they must follow. So long as they follow those rules, they should have a clear conscience. The defense attorney, while operating within the confines of these rules, is supposed to zealously advocate for their client. That is the nature of our legal process.
From the outside looking in, it looks horrible! But, imagine that you were arrested for a crime you did not commit. Did the police plant evidence? Did they read you your rights? Did they physically take you into custody before they had enough grounds to arrest you? Were you court appearances held on time? Were you denied your right to counsel after requesting it? Don't you want someone asking all these questions on your behalf?
I hope this helps!
Kim