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?

Not true at all.

Defence lawyers are there to ensure everyone has a fair trial, so that they can't have their conviction overturned.

Yup!

Yes exactly. I imagine the most common version of this is where there is CCTV of the defendant committing the crime but the defendants case is “that’s not me”. The solicitor/barrister can still put that forward if that’s what the client instructs (even if it quite clearly is them) and it’s on the prosecution to persuade the jury that it is the defendant. It’s not embarrassing for the solicitor/barrister as everyone in the know like the prosecution/judge etc. will know they’re simply acting on instruction.

What a mindlessly stupid post

They're entitled to it, by their way of it.

The Criminal Bar Association in NI are currently withdrawing services because of how poorly paid legal aid rates are, to the extent those with out money behind them, or those who don't practise other areas simply cannot afford to continue being criminal barristers. Newly qualified barristers are leaving or going corporate. Lack of criminal barristers is bad for everyone, it's bad for the prosecution, bad for victims, and bad for defendants who can't pay (ie, not your rugby rape trial types, and flashy drug dealers, but bad for uneducated, poorer defendants who may be victim of circumstances themselves to an extent).

I asked a criminal barrister this once and her response was because everyone deserves a defence. I understand that process wise we need this for justice but also think I am not sure how everyone does deserve it. Imagine being defence for the Sara Sharif case - how would you even begin?

You do what you have to do to ensure the trial is fair and follows the due process.

Well if someone gets a plumber to do work the plumber provides and invoice it gets paid i don't thing thr plumber checks where the money comes from

The lawyer provides an 'invoice' it gets paid the same i presume, legally people are entitled to a defence but questioning who is entitled to a defence would be questionable because I presume as you get the defence before you are convicted or not so we call all go 'oh they have to be guilty because they are gangsters' but people are entitled to be treated equally

So if we go down the route of law by public opinion who decides what is right or not?

Absolutely there has been a huge amount of press about it.

They get a fixed fee per case which is not up dated frequently enough and which doesn't reflect the number of hours work they do.

Due to the cab rank rule they can't pick and choose their cases meaning they could get a very difficult and time consuming one like it or not.

The criminal bar is having a recruitment and retention crisis.

Many junior barristers lose money in their first few years of practice.

This doesn't really reflect the English jurisdiction. Where are you asking about? The USA?

I get what you’re saying.

If I’m Dodgy Dorris the Drug Dealer who isn’t working and but drives a fancy car and is dripping with gold, and pays my lawyer in a roll of £50 notes, then surely these are ill gotten gains. My lawyer must know that the bags of cash I’m giving him were not got through hard work.
Also, I’m found guilty and not allowed to keep the proceeds of my crimes but then the lawyer has a load of that illegal money.

@MJconfessions In the uk, barristers represent the client. They might have no defence worth putting forward but it’s their job to try. Even if it’s an explanation it’s useful.

Why do you think they are highly paid? Many working solely at the criminal bar don’t get much after expenses, eg overnight stays, travel etc. The very junior bar get next to nothing. Barristers are paid by solicitors usually for an agreed fee. Until someone is guilty there are no proceeds of crime.

Also I think the state can release money for payments.

To be super pedantic you don’t mean “in the uk” you mean “in England and wales” as in Scotland there is no such thing as a barrister.

And I’m not sure about n Ireland

Yes we have barristers. It works the same basically as the English and Welsh posters have explained.

We have solicitors and barristers in ireland, as far as i know it's exactly the same training and process as England.

I didn't realise Scotland was different

No, I’m in England and I was asking generally.

Having said that, I was a victim of robbery recently - it was caught on camera. The perpetrator pled not guilty but I’m aware he admitted it was him in the footage (as the police said I didn’t need to identify him, he agreed it was him). It’s going to trial soon. I know his story must be some bullshit if he agrees it’s him in the footage robbing me, but has pled not guilty.

@MJconfessions as he is entitled to do, and he will then stand trial and be convicted if the evidence is enough to convict beyond reasonable doubt

I really don’t respect (some) lawyers for this reason…but from a moral point of view. I just don’t understand how you could represent someone who you know has done something horrifically wrong

When a lawyer is approached by a new client to defend them in say a fraud case, the lawyer would not know whether the client is a criminal or not. Criminal defence work is not regulated by the anti-money laundering rules. This means that a criminal defence lawyer can accept an instruction to defend this person without applying the usual client due diligence and anti-money laundering checks. Part of the reason is every person is entitled to use a lawyer of their choice to defend them. Another reason is that criminal defence work does not in itself involve the movement of money, unlike a conveyancing transaction, and therefore does not by definition engage money laundering (i.e. there is no money to be laundered by the act of defending a person in court).

Having taken on the defence work, if the lawyer realises that the client is asking him/her for advice on what 'story' to tell, the lawyer cannot do so because it is a lie. If the client persists, the lawyer must discharge him/herself because they cannot advance a case which they know is a lie. If the client confesses to the lawyer and is therefore guilty of the deed, the lawyer can still and should still defend the client by either advancing a defence (e.g. diminished responsibility or duress) or querying the evidence (e.g. the prosecution has not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). If the lawyer is asked to advance a case for the client which the lawyer knows is untrue, the lawyer must also cease to act.

Some posters have queried how the lawyer can accept 'dirty' money in payment of their fees. There is a specific exception under the money laundering rules which allows lawyers to accept dirty money if they had received the money in exchange for having given legal services to the client ('adequate consideration'). This again protects lawyers and allows a client, criminal or not, to pay for their defence.

They presented the case, as is their job.

If we want a liberal democracy where all are entitled to a fair trial ( an aim we are failing on in Many many respects) what is preferable ?

In this case, these abhorrent people were given a clearly fair trial. They were tried and found guilty. And will be locked up for a very long time time.

The pain and suffering inflicted on Sara cannot be undone. 💐

But justice has been done. And seen to have been done

@Lovewilltearusapartagain you might find this an explanatory read: www.barcouncil.org.uk/resource/cab-rank-rule-statement-of-the-four-bars.html

Every individual is entitled to a defence, however abhorrent the charge. If the individual cannot afford legal defence, the state will pay for it (although I appreciate there are a lot of issues with Legal Aid).

It is a mark of a civilised society. It is a fundamental right that a person is innocent until proven guilty. There cannot be trial by media or popular vote.

If you were ever wrongfully accused of a heinous crime, say you were set up, you would be glad of this protection.