question about lawyers being paid by criminals

[TiramisuCheesecake]

Just random pondering...

Watching an episode of 24 hours in Police Custody featuring a story about a woman being done for fraud to buy drugs, and the gang which supplied the drugs. The alleged ringleader of the drugs gang has a very flash lawyer with a flash car and was discussing with the police buying another flash car for £75k.

Now when you are defending these people - who were found guilty - isn't it pretty clear that the defendants are funding their legal representation with dirty money? So how does that work? You are literally being paid with proceeds of crime?

Never met a lawyer I liked.

They'd happily let a child killer walk the streets if it paid them.

Unfair - I know lots of lovely lawyers. I don’t know many criminal defence lawyers mind you.

So ask one of them?
🤷🏻‍♀️

Agree with a pp - it's a bit bizarre that you're asking here instead of asking any one of the "lots of lovely lawyers "

Because I don't know lawyers who do criminal defence!

jeez Louise, some of you lot could start a fight in an empty room.

I guess some people are really good at separating out their work life.

I think I want to know more about public defenders. Like when a client tells them an obviously bogus story, do they ever just think bullshit and refuse to put that story forward, or do they have to push forward with that client’s story regardless? Some crime defence claims are ridiculous.,

i assume the highly paid criminal defence solicitors are probably more economical with the truth and may even advise clients of alternative stories to tell etc. but I’m curious about the lower paid ones who don’t have a hidden agenda or investment in outcome.

An effective defence is important for fair justice... its easy to say a defence lawyer let's murderers walk free but they also stop innocent people being convicted of crimes.

In case of drug dealers etc... I think it is obvious its proceeds of crime.

I think the OP means how they do it legally. The idea is proceeds of crime are taken off the person the person found guilty because crime can't "pay" as such. So how are they entitled to use that money to fund a defence.

Unless, OP, you don't pay until after the case is concluded and if the proceeds are seized you have to find another way to fund it?

Every solicitor is supposed to complete know your client checks - Customer due diligence | The Law Society

If there are firms which are not complying with these duties, they can be reported to the Solicitors' Regulation Authority who can take disciplinary action.

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/anti-money-laundering/source-of-funds-clean-or-consistent-with-risk

This looks like it might be helpful ^

No. The solicitor or barrister cannot tell a defendant to come up with another story. They have a code of ethics they must follow.

All defendants are allowed to have a defence lawyer. It’s justice. Both sides of a case must be heard even if one side is not believed. A barrister must present the defendants case. Of course defendants can plead guilty. They don’t have to plead not guilty.

The proceeds of crime are confiscated. The defendants might have other ways of paying. If they have no money, they might get a funded lawyer. That does not mean the lawyer is useless. Tv programmes rarely give you the details.

I think the OP means how they do it legally. The idea is proceeds of crime are taken off the person the person found guilty because crime can't "pay" as such. So how are they entitled to use that money to fund a defence.

Exactly that. There was a well known top solicitor in Glasgow who defended ALL the really serious murderers and criminals for a while, he represented some very dodgy people. I support the basic idea that everyone is entitled to a defence but you do have to wonder how dodgy Dave the drug dealer is paying for a top lawyer with no visible form of income.

I suppose the dealers must clean up their money before hiring their legal representative. Or get some advice about how to do so.

I can answer this :).

The solicitor takes instructions from the client, therefore if the client says “I swerved to avoid a winged pig and hit a pedestrian, then a passer by pinned me down and poured a bottle of vodka down my throat and that’s why I failed the breath test” then it’s the job of the solicitor to advise the client on that basis and ultimately that’s the story the barrister puts to the jury. Now obviously the solicitor’s role is to advise the client and point out if there are any obvious holes in the story and if there are that it may be best to remain silent on the matter, but it’s not for them to professionally opine on whether the clients story is true.

If the client then says “actually I did do it but I’m going to carry on with the flying pig story” then the solicitor should decline to act for the client as their code of ethics doesn’t allow them to put forward a knowingly untrue case. I’m sure some of them don’t always follow this guidance though and I’m also sure some of the unscrupulous ones do suggest alternative versions of events.

But if they aren't classed as proceeds of crime until after someone has been found guilty of the crime what happens if their lawyer had already been paid?

No they wouldn’t. I know a lot of criminal lawyers and this is simply not true. If you have ever witnessed one of them who is bound by their professional obligations to defend someone accused of a horrible crime crying because of the details they have had to read, you would think differently.

Ahhh brilliant, thank you for the information. Really interesting to know. It seems more above board than I assumed.

In a situation where a solicitor has put their client’s version of events forward as a defence in the belief it is the truth, then the prosecution completely disprove it (eg video evidence), is it embarrassing for defence solicitors?

What will likely happen is the organised criminals will have ways of 'cleaning' their money. That way the solicitors get paid by money technically not proceeds of crime even though we know it is. They usually also have legitimate businesses to hide their own goings and will use money from those to pay.

A Defence lawyer’s job is to set out his/ her client’s case, as the client would set it out were he legally qualified. The lawyer explains any defence the client may have and sets that out to the court.

The lawyer is an officer of the Court and if the Coury is deliberately misled he or she is guilty of professional misconduct. A lawyer does not make up stories, or if he is he is he is liable to be struck off

if a client tells his lawyer he has done whatever it is, the lawyer can still enter a not guilty plea. All that does is say to the prosecution, prove your case.

That’s fine. But he can’t present false stories and if the client insists he is professionally compromised and must stop acting.

There are strict rules about exchange of evidence, you can't just produce new evidence at trial so this scenario shouldn't happen.

In practice you do occasionally get caught in a situation where it becomes clear your client is lying. Providing the lawyer acts correctly and in accordance with professional ethics the only person who looks bad is the person who was lying.

If a barrister knows their client is guilty then they can’t defend them? Every one deserves a fair trial, and they’re not a criminal until they’ve been convicted.
if they are convicted of an offence like organised crime / drugs then the govt absolutely can and does go after the proceeds of crime.
You do realise most criminal lawyers are earning less than McDonald’s workers. If you want to feel jealous of anyone focus on a corporate lawyer, but the criminal ones certainly aren’t in it for the money!!

Often in cases where there is dodgy money the defendants assets are frozen until the case is determined and their lawyers are paid via legal aid.

Don't be a twat

Law firms go through rigorous anti money laundering checks to avoid precisely the situation you are talking about.

"You do realise most criminal lawyers are earning less than McDonalds workers"

Criminal lawyers are paid less than the NMW? 🤔