To ask how defending Lawyers/Solicitors sleep at night.

[lollilou]

When they are defending someone who is accused of a horrible crime and that they know are guilty yet have to come up with a defense to try to get a not guilty verdict? It must happen a lot, how could you live with yourself in that situation? What if the accused gets off then commits another crime?

But it is about the defendsnt, the police/CPS has decided it believes the victim and it has to convince an independent body that it is definitely true and the accussed deserves t o loose their liberty. The burden of proof is so high because its time which cannot be returned if the sentence is found to be unjust.

I remember doing some pro bono work assisting people facing eviction and the one thing that struck me when you are dealing face to face with an ordinary member of the public who is facing losing the roof over their head is how intimidating the whole courts system is if you are not used to it. Quite often a significant part of our role was to help people cope with the experience and organise their thoughts, clarify the facts etc so we could represent them at all. These were not complex cases, they were not in open court, no formal dress, before a District Judge or DDJ and people still found them hugely intimidating.

as a member of the public, I only care that a criminal is taken off the streets

It frightens me if people can say this, not caring how that criminal is taken off the streets. It desperately matters how people are investigated, tried and convicted. Without the system being kept honest (most effectively, by having proper defence representation, how long would it take for things to degenerate into a 'round up the usual suspects' type scenario?

People only say that when it's not them being unfairly accused of somehting. Or someone they love.

Suddenly the issues of fair trials and systemic adherence to the rules take on significence.

Hm really seems here that most people imagine like they could never be the accused. That those are bad people; only criminals can end up in court anyway. Could never be me or someone I know - right?

Oh yes, the police never lie....as we see from the Hillsborough report .

My ? 22yo cousin had some rough friends from high school. One evening he was out late socialising with them & fell asleep in the back of their car. He woke up suddenly to the sound of gunshots: one of his friends had picked a fight with an off-duty police-officer at a petrol station (this is in USA, btw). At least 2 people hospitalised with gunshot wounds.

Cousin had nothing to do with why anyone had any guns or used them, whoever started the argument, the decision to get petrol, etc. His only crime was socialising with old friends. Still he spent 3 days in jail, was accused of many things, and badly needed a damn good lawyer to avoid being charged.

It may sound harsh, but it is one hundred percent true.

Surely the irony of people getting worked up about 'criminals' getting off on trial is that it's the jury who make that decision? You know - the jury made up of ordinary folk just like everyone on MN?

This has been pointed out, and also shows that those challenging the legal system know very little about it.

Defence lawyers have to defend their clients case upon the instructions given by their client.

DH has also had cases which have made him very upset. Unfortunately he doesn't have the option of refusing work just because he doesn't like it. That's his job - just like any other profession.

Reindeer,you are summing up well!
Just about all of us that dont use the legal system know very little about it, that is true.

Going back to a point I made late one evening,if the legal teams are chummy,does that not give the possibility that they could,between them all eg charge clients more than they should,withold evidence,choose to misrepresent evidence etc etc.Especially if the defence and the prosection all work for the same firm.
I dont know of any cases like this,I dont have much to do with the legal system.
Or are there many checks and balances in place to stop this happening.

You could think that amillionyears- just as some people think that all doctors are in a conspiracy to keep us all sick so they are never out of work. I would suggest that it is a rather uncharitable view of people who go into a particular line of work because they believe in the importance of it to society.

Not just uncharitable but downright insulting.

I am very sorry to have insulted you Thistledew,and any other legal people I may have insulted.
I dont know that I do think that,just thinking things through.

I did ask if there is a possibility of that happening.
Perhaps someone else might like to answer that,or perhaps not.

Amillionyears - that is downright insulting to the professional integrity of many lawyers. I work in a law firm and there are strict procedures in place controlled by the Law Society to ensure neither side gains any information.

amillion, I understand why you think this might happen, but no it would not, if the person wants to keep working as a lawyer.

amillion the decision to charge rests with the police and the CPS. Neither of these are a legal firm. Certainly no one for the defence works for the police or the prosecution.

If the CPS choose to instruct a barrister (who may indeed have colleagues in chambers who work for the defence), that is simply to run the court side of things. The case itself (and the continuing assessment of the case) will be run by a solicitor within the CPS.

I am an ordinary person in the street.
I wouldnt think many on MN would even know that such a thing as the Law society exists,let alone what it does. I have vaguely heard of it,havent a clue what it does. I will have to google it.

Thank you for that expanation wordfactory, it helps to make things a little clearer.
Had no idea there are solicitors in the CPS running things.

Perhaps I had better stop asking questions now, as I am upsetting some people.

amillionyears
Lawyers are bound by very strict codes of ethics. Barristers are governed by the Bar Council / Bar Standards Board and Solicitors by the Law Society / Solicitors Regulation Authority. Both Barristers and Solicitors have a duty to the Court to present the case accurately and a duty to their client. To collude with the other side on a case would be a breach of both of those duties and a breach of either could be enough to have you struck off from the roll of practicing solicitors /barristers. If you are struck off you cannot work as a lawyer or tell people you are a lawyer etc.

If you see the Principles that drive the Solicitors Code of Conduct its clear that any form of chummy collusion would be a breach of quite a few of them (probably the first 6 of 10)
www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/handbookprinciples/content.page

Not at all amillion...life is or should be a series of questions no?

The day I stop learning new things is the day I die.

And I actually think people are intrigued by the legal system. My books are about just that. In fact, at the risk of outing mysel, I write my first book in answer to the myriad times I'd been asked the question the OP is posing.

How it works is this (generally).

1.Police arrest suspect and take him to the nick.

2.They interview him, with or without a defence solicitor who comes from an oitside firm.

1. The arresting officer decides whether to charge. Some nicks have a resident CPS rep to help make the decision.

1. Suspect is either charged or bailed to return at another date pending further enquiries, or released without charge.

1. If charged the prosecutioin case is handed to the CPS who assign it to a lawyer (solicitor, barrister or clerk..but all in house).

1. As the case progresses the CPS may instruct a barrister, but the case lawyer within the CPS remains in day to day charge.

amillion
I agree with wordfactory ask away. If you don't understand how the legal system works then maybe us lawyers need to do a better job of explaining to people how things operate.

Just to emphasise a point. The CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) is part of the State / Civil Service. It is a government body that employs solicitors and barristers to prosecute people. All criminal prosecutions (with the exception of limited rights to private prosecutions) are brought by the State, in the name of the State. So if I was being prosecuted the case would be listed as
R v ChazsBrilliantAttitude
i.e. Regina (the Queen /the State) versus ChazsBrilliantAttitude

I've got a question actually.

Do briefs still go out tied with ribbon? Or are they emailed these days?

I am somewhat enlightened and somewhat more confused in about equal measure!
I had no idea it was such a complicated thing,though I suppose it needs to be.
I didnt know that the CPS was part of the State/Civil Service,but thinking about it,I suppose it would have to be?
And all I thought the CPS did was decide whether there was enough evidence for a case to go to trial. Perhaps I should be watching some legal dramas about it all. But that was where I got the idea from that defence and proscuting lawyers almost hate each other.

The cases where they are eg Brown versus Smith are different again I presume. No one need answer that necessarily. Im thinking I should google some stuff. I will also look up the link that Chazs posted,later on.

Thanks for not minding me asking questions.

Brown v Smith would be a civil case not a criminal one.
Civil cases are disputes between often between private parties about contracts / agreements / commercial matters or may be family matters etc.

So if Mrs Brown sold 100 boxes of widgets to Mr Smith and Mr Smith didn't pay Mrs Brown would take him to court to sue him for the money and get a court judgement that he owed her the money.

The case would be listed as Brown v Smith and would be heard in a County Court or the High Court.

Criminal cases are heard in either in the Magistrates Court (minor offences) or the Crown Court. The most famous Crown Court is the Central Criminal Court which is on a street called Old Bailey hence its nickname.

amillionyears if you are serious about watching legal dramas, my criminal law tutor at Law School reckoned Judge John Deed was about the best UK drama in terms of having some realism (in terms of the system if not the other content). Most legal drama is complete tosh though I may have been known to shout at the screen due to complete lack of realism

Ha mycat when Silk was on DH made me agree not to say anything. I can't help the odd eye roll though!