If you are a defence lawyer..

[Soubriquet]

And the person you’re representing is on trial for some really horrific crimes, how do you cope with yourself knowing that you are trying to get this person off?

Do you convince yourself that the evidence is wrong and your client is innocent?

Do you “half arse” your job and hope that it means your client gets convicted because you didn’t do your job properly?

How do you feel if your client gets off and you know deep down they did these crimes?

I’m not trying to be today here. Currently watching a criminal program and it got me wondering how defence lawyers mindset worked.

I can’t wait to see the responses for this - do YOU think that everyone should be entitled to a fair trial and decent defence ?

Morally yes I do. Ethically..I’m not so sure. Especially when the crime is one that has the entire world talking about

I understand the ethical difficulty, but it is so important we keep hold of this principle.

I know. It’s hard though I guess to be objective sometimes

For example the James Bulger murder. I always wondered how the defence lawyer felt having to hear the details of that the boys did to him, and then still had to represent them.

I think if the accused admits to actually doing it you have to either remove yourself from the case or have them plead guilty. So on that basis, I suppose you have to approach it on the basis that you believe in their innocence. Although realistically I'm not sure that can always be true, can it?

Presumably everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Defence lawyers are there to preserve the integrity of the law and the right to a fair trial. It matters not what their personal thoughts are but they are there to ensure proper process.

@Finfintytint

Presumably everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Defence lawyers are there to preserve the integrity of the law and the right to a fair trial. It matters not what their personal thoughts are but they are there to ensure proper process.

This.

Additionally, if they feel strongly about the case, they have the option to pass it to a another lawyer.

Either you think the right to a fair trial, including legal representation, is a fundamental part of democracy, or you don’t.

Defence lawyers do essential work.

How do prosecutors feel when they fuck up and someone gets off? What’s the ‘mindset’ of people who have successfully prosecuted innocent people?

How do prosecutors feel when they fuck up and someone gets off?

That's a good question. I read the transcripts of a very high profile rape trial and found myself thinking 'I can't believe did you didn't ask X,y and Z'. I actually wondered if the barrister for the prosecution really wanted to win the case at all or if he was half heartedly on the defendants side.

I think of it less as they're trying to get a 'not guilty' as stress testing the case. Like defending a dissertation, or crash testing a car. If the prosecution has put together a good case and the evidence is sound then it should stand up to scrutiny, and you know the defendant was properly proven guilty, and if not then a conviction wouldn't be justifiable. How could we have any faith in the justice system if there weren't an inbuilt system of checks?

Obviously it's not perfect, and fuckups and human biases happen, but the existence of defence lawyers isn't the problem.

No lawyer (prosecutors or defence) should be ‘half arsed’ doing the job - you have to act in your clients interest to the best of your abilities.
Ultimately it’s not for me as a solicitor to decide on the innocent or guilt of my client - my role would be (I don’t do criminal law) to test the prosecution case, to ensure that the evidence presented holds up to scrutiny- it’s for the judge or jury to decide on guilt.

OP - you are saying that accusation & suspicion is proof enough. I find that a deeply unethical viewpoint and I have no idea how you find it acceptable.

I think this was covered in the book the secrecy barrister

I don't practice in criminal law, but civil. My thoughts: it's not for the defence solicitor to decide guilt - that's for the jury - lay people - on the evidence presented.
A solicitor must represent every client to the best of their ability. Not to do so is negligent.
As solicitors, we are officers of the court. If your client tells you that they are guilty, you advise them to plead guilty. If you feel particularly strongly, you don't have to take on the case, or you can stop representing them. Although not my area, I assume it's as simple as coming off the record in a civil matter.

Oh and further, the right to a fair trial is enshrined in law and is an important part of the system.

I'm sure that if you or your family was accused of committing a horrific crime then you would want to represented.

I imagine they manage to do it because they understand the UN declaration of human rights as well as the laws of the country they operate in OP.

Not quite the same, but I've been involved in Employment cases where HR reps lied on record to absolve the company of blame. One of them was very high up in the CIPD, often quoted in the media on HR issues. I later heard one young HR rep left because she was so disgusted, but the rest of them considered it part of the job.

I had a case where the company solicitor was caught out by the judge in a bald-faced lie. A big one, too. The judge went mental, and yelled at them for nearly ten minutes. It was glorious. But when I asked the barrister afterwards about making a formal complaint to the solicitors professional body, I was told not to bother, because nothing would happen.

Imagine how frightening it would be to live in a state that could accuse you of a crime and not give you the opportunity to have someone who understands the law and is able to eloquently present your version of the story to the judge / jury who will determine your fate.

I would think that is how lawyers cope with themselves. Any individual case, even in instances where you might believe a person is guilty but are found innocent, pales into insignificance in comparison to that basic principle - that everyone accused of a crime should be given the opportunity to have a competent lawyer test that accusation by defending them to the best of their ability.

Look up Stefan Kiszko and see what happens when pretty much everyone 'half-arsses' their job. If he's been born fifteen years earlier he'd've swing from a rope - as it was, he had an awful time in prison and he and his mother died not long after his exoneration and release. Worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history.
People who don't understand: the 'Cab Rank' rule; the idea that the job of the defence Is test the prosecution's case; the importance of a fair trial in preserving the integrity of the UK justice system - just bloody infuriate me. It's this complete lack of critical thinking which has seen this country descend into the mire in the last 20 odd years.

FOK - but the op is asking in order to understand.