Everyone forgets the one item. "Money" A lawyer does not have to accept the case if it will choke him.
Posted by
Ernest Junee, NSW Australia on July 11, 2008:
OK, I'm coming into this late as I only just found the link in your latest email. I'm not a lawyer, but have had to study and apply a lot of laws here in Australia and am a great student of the British legal system on which both the Australian and USA systems are based.
I love reading the biographies and like of the British lawyers. One thing I do find interesting is an ethical British lawyer is an officer of the court first and his client's defender second. His job is to get the best he can for his client, but once told his client admits his guilt to the lawyer, an ethical lawyer can't defend a plea of 'Not guilty' as he would be in violation of his oath to see justice done. Once having pleaded guilty, he'll do his best to minimise his client's sentence. And this is how I think it should be, if the person's guilty, and the lawyer knows this for a fact, he shouldn't represent him unless he pleas that way.
Posted by
Phil in Oregon on July 11, 2008:
You say you did not receive any responses on this issue from any lawyers in America? Hmm, I wrote you at least 2 or 3 comments defending the lawyer and pointing out that allowing anyone (bar association or whoever) to decide what a lawyer can or cannot argue in a case would automatically interfere with a defendant's right to a fair trial. You responded to one of my comments via email.
I spent several years as a prosecutor, so I have been a lawyer although I don't practice law now. So what am I, chopped liver? Or maybe you didn't count my comments because I am not now a practicing attorney even though that was my profession for several years.
In either case, I don't think it's quite accurate to say you never received any comments from any American lawyer.
---
Then I'm unclear why you didn't say anything when the contents of this page was first published in August 2006. Sorry, but I don't remember any messages from you, and I don't find any in my Comments folders. Perhaps you didn't mention you are/were a lawyer and I didn't realize it -- I don't know. I also have no opinion on whether you're chopped liver or not, as I have not met you in person, nor have I seen objective analysis from an expert.
(Later thought: I suppose it's also possible that you wrote me after I wrote this page to say that no American lawyers had responded, by which time it was too late.) -rc
Posted by
Scott, Killeen, TX on July 12, 2008:
To some extent, this is a self-limiting problem: absurdities offered to a judge or jury are likely to have the judge or jury laughing... while they vote against the defendant.
Posted by
Tristram, ME on July 13, 2008:
I have a friend who argues passionately that the lawyers duty to his or her client is to get a not guilty verdict no matter what. This is how she defines "best possible representation." It all ends up being in how you define that. I do find it odd that people hate lawyers so much but love the police. The solicitor Mr. Slimy Slime might do questionable things in representing his client, or in prosecuting the accused, but it is up to Officer Smiley to accuse someone, and the latter will do much more outlandish things to build a case. Not to mention that lawyers don't police themselves and know they are subject to the same laws as those they defend or prosecute.
---
Things might be different in Canada, but there's definitely a love/HATE relationship with the police in the U.S. Most love them when they need them, but otherwise "hate" them to be zealous. It's interesting watching some people try to resolve the conflicts in their thinking. -rc
Posted by
Tom of Wallingford, PA on July 14, 2008:
I am not a lawyer, but I do not think that this is a problem; such a ridiculous proclamation will be summarily rejected by any reasonable judge or jury. The lawyer making this absurd argument is not helping his client, since not only will the argument be rejected, but it also damages his credibility for any other statements he makes on behalf of his client. If this is truly the best defense that can be made, then the system should work, as the accused should readily be found guilty as charged.
Where I have a problem in this case is with the prosecution plea-bargaining such a "slam dunk" case. Just as the defense attorney should vigorously defend his client to get the minimal possible outcome, so too should the prosecution vigorously pursue the maximum (reasonable) outcome. When the defense must resort to such absurd claims, there is no reason for the prosecution to "cave in" and offer a plea agreement. Offering a plea in such a case for "expediency" or to save money (tax dollars) is reprehensible and indicates that the prosecutors are not doing their job. They are creating a public safety hazard by allowing such an evil person to walk the streets long before he should be allowed to again see the light of day.
---
I agree with your first point, though I still see a "problem" in that such tactics damage the reputation of the profession as a whole. Your second point is something I hadn't considered, and is an excellent thought-provoker indeed. -rc
Posted by
Roach, Netherlands on July 15, 2008:
I'm wondering whether the lawyer really did his best representative effort.
Personally, if I had been the judge (or a member of the jury), all that plea would have caused me to do would be to move the punishment up a notch for not really being repentant. Obviously, if he doesn't disagree with his lawyer, the defendant agrees with the statements, and therefore I have to doubt his pleas of how sorry he is that it happened.
Not only did the lawyer a disservice to his own profession (which admittedly should take second seat to the interests of his client), but here I think he also did a disservice to his client...
Posted by
Neil, UK on August 9, 2008:
Randy, I'd say that you explained where this lawyer went wrong, albeit indirectly, in the TSA book, where you said (p.322) that lawyers are "committed to continue on with their client even though they don't think the case has merit". Gonta's assertions are merely an (extreme to the point of ludicrous) manifestation of this underlying problem.
Sadly, This Isn't a Lawyer Joke - Comments
Posted by Walter, Florida on July 11, 2008:
Everyone forgets the one item. "Money" A lawyer does not have to accept the case if it will choke him.
Posted by Ernest Junee, NSW Australia on July 11, 2008:
OK, I'm coming into this late as I only just found the link in your latest email. I'm not a lawyer, but have had to study and apply a lot of laws here in Australia and am a great student of the British legal system on which both the Australian and USA systems are based.
I love reading the biographies and like of the British lawyers. One thing I do find interesting is an ethical British lawyer is an officer of the court first and his client's defender second. His job is to get the best he can for his client, but once told his client admits his guilt to the lawyer, an ethical lawyer can't defend a plea of 'Not guilty' as he would be in violation of his oath to see justice done. Once having pleaded guilty, he'll do his best to minimise his client's sentence. And this is how I think it should be, if the person's guilty, and the lawyer knows this for a fact, he shouldn't represent him unless he pleas that way.
Posted by Phil in Oregon on July 11, 2008:
You say you did not receive any responses on this issue from any lawyers in America? Hmm, I wrote you at least 2 or 3 comments defending the lawyer and pointing out that allowing anyone (bar association or whoever) to decide what a lawyer can or cannot argue in a case would automatically interfere with a defendant's right to a fair trial. You responded to one of my comments via email.
I spent several years as a prosecutor, so I have been a lawyer although I don't practice law now. So what am I, chopped liver? Or maybe you didn't count my comments because I am not now a practicing attorney even though that was my profession for several years.
In either case, I don't think it's quite accurate to say you never received any comments from any American lawyer.
---
Then I'm unclear why you didn't say anything when the contents of this page was first published in August 2006. Sorry, but I don't remember any messages from you, and I don't find any in my Comments folders. Perhaps you didn't mention you are/were a lawyer and I didn't realize it -- I don't know. I also have no opinion on whether you're chopped liver or not, as I have not met you in person, nor have I seen objective analysis from an expert.
(Later thought: I suppose it's also possible that you wrote me after I wrote this page to say that no American lawyers had responded, by which time it was too late.) -rc
Posted by Scott, Killeen, TX on July 12, 2008:
To some extent, this is a self-limiting problem: absurdities offered to a judge or jury are likely to have the judge or jury laughing... while they vote against the defendant.
Posted by Tristram, ME on July 13, 2008:
I have a friend who argues passionately that the lawyers duty to his or her client is to get a not guilty verdict no matter what. This is how she defines "best possible representation." It all ends up being in how you define that. I do find it odd that people hate lawyers so much but love the police. The solicitor Mr. Slimy Slime might do questionable things in representing his client, or in prosecuting the accused, but it is up to Officer Smiley to accuse someone, and the latter will do much more outlandish things to build a case. Not to mention that lawyers don't police themselves and know they are subject to the same laws as those they defend or prosecute.
---
Things might be different in Canada, but there's definitely a love/HATE relationship with the police in the U.S. Most love them when they need them, but otherwise "hate" them to be zealous. It's interesting watching some people try to resolve the conflicts in their thinking. -rc
Posted by Tom of Wallingford, PA on July 14, 2008:
I am not a lawyer, but I do not think that this is a problem; such a ridiculous proclamation will be summarily rejected by any reasonable judge or jury. The lawyer making this absurd argument is not helping his client, since not only will the argument be rejected, but it also damages his credibility for any other statements he makes on behalf of his client. If this is truly the best defense that can be made, then the system should work, as the accused should readily be found guilty as charged.
Where I have a problem in this case is with the prosecution plea-bargaining such a "slam dunk" case. Just as the defense attorney should vigorously defend his client to get the minimal possible outcome, so too should the prosecution vigorously pursue the maximum (reasonable) outcome. When the defense must resort to such absurd claims, there is no reason for the prosecution to "cave in" and offer a plea agreement. Offering a plea in such a case for "expediency" or to save money (tax dollars) is reprehensible and indicates that the prosecutors are not doing their job. They are creating a public safety hazard by allowing such an evil person to walk the streets long before he should be allowed to again see the light of day.
---
I agree with your first point, though I still see a "problem" in that such tactics damage the reputation of the profession as a whole. Your second point is something I hadn't considered, and is an excellent thought-provoker indeed. -rc
Posted by Roach, Netherlands on July 15, 2008:
I'm wondering whether the lawyer really did his best representative effort.
Personally, if I had been the judge (or a member of the jury), all that plea would have caused me to do would be to move the punishment up a notch for not really being repentant. Obviously, if he doesn't disagree with his lawyer, the defendant agrees with the statements, and therefore I have to doubt his pleas of how sorry he is that it happened.
Not only did the lawyer a disservice to his own profession (which admittedly should take second seat to the interests of his client), but here I think he also did a disservice to his client...
Posted by Neil, UK on August 9, 2008:
Randy, I'd say that you explained where this lawyer went wrong, albeit indirectly, in the TSA book, where you said (p.322) that lawyers are "committed to continue on with their client even though they don't think the case has merit". Gonta's assertions are merely an (extreme to the point of ludicrous) manifestation of this underlying problem.
Read the article that everyone's commenting on, or post a comment about it.