Why do lawyers represent criminals? Do you approve of it?
815854
Of course I approve. If we didn't have lawyers then you could be arrested and tried for anything without a defense. Everyone is entitled to a defense. What if you were innocent? Your lawyer would be your best friend and only friend in some cases.
270677
Lawyers are sly as foxes. They typically only ask questions that they already know the answers to. They use various tactics to get you to say what they want you to say, unless of course the lawyer is defending or representing you. Some lawyers speak in a very demanding voice in an attempt to undermine your confidence and to dispute the truth of your statements. Beware! I believe the best way to handle this is not to play into this tricky by keeping a cool head, remain calm at all times. If you seem unconfident, you may lose your case.
928323
There's an old adage that the first client of the criminal defense attorney is the US Constitution.  \n\nMost criminal defense lawyers don't care whether their clients are guilty or not.  They just want to ensure that the police and the prosecutors have done their jobs properly and ensure the criminal justice system is working.  If they lose at trial, but are satisfied the the police and prosecutors did everything by the book, they generally don't take it too hard. If the defense thinks a conviction is imminent, they will generally try a plea bargain to receive a lesser sentence for their client.  Before anyone makes any judgment's about the criminal defense attorney "trying to get his client off with a slap on the wrist", they should also realize that the prosecutor has to agree to the deal, and the judge has to approve it.  So if anyone is ever upset with a plea bargain, they need to realize that if the judge and prosecutor went along with it, its probably in the state's best interest as well.  \n\nBut to answer your question, see below.\n\nABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal\n(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: \n\n(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; \n\n(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or \n\n(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. \n\n(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. \n\n(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6. \n...\n\nSo if a client confesses guilt to his lawyer, the above rule prohibits the lawyer from putting the client on the stand (refered to as "subornation of perjury").  If the lawyer knows the client is guilty, and the client doesn't plead guilty, the case goes to trial.  At trial, the lawyer can't put the client on the stand, because the lawyer knows the client will lie about his or her innocence once they are on the stand. This is why defense lawyers don't care whether their clients are guilty or not, and why they specifically tell their clients not to tell them if they are guilty or not.  They don't want to know, so they can put them on the stand. \n\nBelieve it or not, this rule is almost never violated.  No lawyer would ever risk losing his license because his or her client is a liar.\n\nAnd remember, OJ didn't take the stand.  Draw your own conclusion....
887190
I think it is a lot of reasons.\n\n1) Jealousy-lawyers make a LOT of money.  When you break down an hourly wage, its crazy compared to the average person.\n\n2) A lawyer can take a logical reason and make it illogical.  eg A person commits a murder.  Admits it.  Then the lawyer will give all sorts of reasons to justify the murder so the person isnt penalized as severely.  Or, in the case of laws, they have to assume for so many things it jumbles up the org reason for the law\n\n3) People see lawyers as defending people that have done horrendous things.  Child molesters Murders Terrorists  Under law everone deserves a fair trial...but its darn hard to watch an inempt prosecuter "let" someone get away with something, or watch a defense lawyer defend the wrongful actions of someone and see them get off\n\n4) The bad lawyers are the ones you see most often or hear about.  The corrupt ones.  For every good lawyer, the public remembers the 20 "bad" ones.\n\n5) Lawyers, because of their education and wealth, exude a class system that those who dont have either, resent.  Some of the lawyers seem to look down on those "without" and that furthers the resentment.\n\nDo they deserve the reputation?  As with any generalization...some do, some dont.  :)
976853
I happen to be a lawyer.  I was somewhat older when I started law school (30), so there wasn't an illusion of showing up to save the world from all of the injustices, however, I wanted to be really good at what I did.  After working in private practice for 4 years, I struck out on my own.  It has been a struggle to establish a solid client base, but I love being my own boss, getting to pick and choose what cases I want to take, and setting my own hours.  It really gives me a lot more time to spend with my family.  Not the typical burning the midnight oil scenario.  What I truly despise are the people who stereotype the entire legal profession as power hungry, greedy, blood sucking vultures.  That is entirely untrue, and while there are unsavory persons in any profession, many attorneys in my community are truly concerned and caring individuals who volunteer their time on many occasions to help those less fortunate.  Enough said!!
754071
I have had a mix of experiences with the police and the justice system.  After all, the police and the justice system are (is?) made up of people like you and me.  I would say that the people that I have personally known who are police officers or lawyers/judges do have a greater commitment to make their community a better place than the average book store clerk, college student, or ski instructor.\n\nThe only time I served on a jury, the District Attorney and her staff were prepared and professional.  The police officers, prison officials, doctors, etc. who gave testimony at this trial were thoughtful in their responses and demeanor.  The convicted criminal (who was bringing suit to get out of jail early) remains behind bars.   Believe me, the country is a much better place with this criminal behind bars than out in the community!
188416
From my experience the service is basically a come-on. Sure they'll answer some legal questions, enough to get you going so that you retain one of there lawyers.\n\nThe only legal matters ever setteled to my satisfaction or victory I handeled myself, I have no legal experience and dropped out of high school!\n\nLawyers are a scam, double-agents of these corrupt and deceitful courts, all have sworn an oath(life & soul) to ensure that in all matters the system/establishment wins first, and in return they can rob you blind, regardless of your illusionary win or loss!
173364
You mean, should lawyers be paid for doing their job?  Yes.\n\nOr do you mean, should companies, if they have violated laws or rights of others, such as their employees or customers, be free not to pay like any individual person would have to?  In that case, no.
644967
Or a somewhat more realistic answer:\n\nIt really depends.  How many cars can a mechanic work on without one of them not getting fixed properly?  How many patients can a dentist see without one of them getting proper treatment?\n\nIt would depend on the person, wouldn't it?\n\nLawyers are ethically bound to represent their clients zealously.  If a lawyer can't provide an adequate defense for their client, they are obligated to take action to see that the client does get adequate representation.
859653
Actually that's pretty simple. It is to help the defendant! It helps to keep people from being charged fraudulently or carelessly. It is a deterrence method, basically.
298101
No, justice is only for those who can afford it.  Some want to say that's it's for the real poor also but public defenders are NOT the same has a hired/bought lawyer.  I thought America was for the people by the people but it just seems to me that America is for the politicians, lawyers and rich.  \n\nLet's say you go to court for a traffic  ticket.  Why is it a lawyer can get you a deal but you can't get the deal unless you pay for a lawyer?  I mean why can't I just talk to the judge?  Judges only want to hear from lawyers.  It's real odd to me that the guy ahead of me with the same type of ticket just got his knocked off his record by his lawyer but I go in front of the judge and I can't that same deal.  That's not justice.  That's a business.  You get what you pay for type of deal.  That is not what the judicial system is supposed to be for.\n\nTo be honest I have gone to law school and talked to plenty of legal people and I realize that it just about the numbers.  It's all about wins and losses NOT JUSTICE.
679945
Research local Attorneys in your area, many of them work in several areas of the law - including criminal, domestic, bankruptcy, etc. Build a realtionship with him/her. However, I think it is unethical for Attorneys to collect fees for services they have not provided yet. Yes, Attorneys do have to follow a code of ethics. \n\n(If you are paying a criminal lawyer in advance for acts you havent commited yet, I have to wonder what the heck you are planning on doing.)\n\nInstead of doing this, I would sincerly recommend putting extra cash in a savings account each month instead. You'd collect interest each month you didnt need an Attorney.
763443
Although I don't practice in personal injury law, if I had a client who wanted to retain me to represent him, and I don't want the case because I "think he's nuts", then I would just indicate, IN WRITING, that I am declining to represent him.  With the exception of attorneys who accept court appointments in criminal matters (and certain civil matters) an attorney is not required to take a case, and is not required to give a reason for taking the case.\n\nI would also indicate in my letter declining representation that I am not declining representation based on an evaluation of his case, and have not made a determination nor am I advising him on the merits of his case.  I will then suggest he consult other counsel, but if I truly think that he's nuts, I won't refer him to another attorney.  If he asks, I would suggest he contact the bar association for a referral.
743096
Because if they're in the courtroom all the time, then they see only either lawyers or criminals.  So they just go for the lawyers.
390201
To one degree or another, all criminal laws are ineffective, because we have to try to achieve the conflicting aims of controlling the undesired behavior while minimizing the impact on the rest of society, including the conviction of innocent people.  Where there is a law that seems to be particularly ineffective, it is usually either because it is not a very popular law to begin with, or because the subject matter of the law makes it difficult to catch all the bad guys in the law’s net without catching too many innocent people.  That’s not a direct answer to your question, but maybe it helps to explain why the problem exists in the first place.
835269
It's a complicated profession, with a lot of dedicated people, plus too many members who abuse their position and violate their ethics.\n\nIt's a shame that soo many attorneys fail to live up to the ethical standards that are still oficially part of what was once an honorable profession. It just makes it that much harder for the rest of us.
448251
I work for lawyers and every summer a law student will clerk at our office.  Law students like to treat the paralegals and legal assistants like we are trash. They get drunk on the idea that we HAVE to help them and think they weild some power over us.  But, the problem is not exclusive to law students.  They get worse after they pass the bar.  Lawyers are some of the most hateful people to work for.  If you think your peers are bad now, wait till they start working at a big firm....they turn into even bigger a-holes!