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?

Would you expect the lawyer you recommended to people, to become more emotionally involved, or would you not want them to be emotionally involved at all.

My dad always says that he would never represent someone he knows. He says it could damage the relationship irretrievably for so many different reasons. He would however pass them on to the best he knew of in the field concerned.

I would not want ANYONE doing a job for me to be 'emotionally involved' with me. I want them to do a good job regardless of what they think of me. I am entitled to respect and courtesy and that is as far as it should go.

Why do you think a professional will do a better job if 'emotionally involved'? Sounds fraught with all kinds of dangers to me. It cuts both ways - emotional involvement can mean negative as well as positive emotions.

If they are emotionally involved,they would hopefully do their utmost,as opposed to normal day to day.
In the case of lawyers,they might go the extra mile or miles if necessary.
Also,if things didnt go well,they could advise you what to do next,even what they would do next if they were you.

I have been in a doctors surgery before,where they know me,and feel fine with asking them,"what would you do if you were me".

I hope and genuinely believe I do my best for all my clients. Sometimes that involves giving them unpalatable truths, a very necessary part of an advisory role.

Representing a friend would almost certainly necessitate giving them advice they didn't want/weren't ready to hear, such is the nature of the beast. The fact that I was someone's friend first and foremost would probably mean I was less able to effectively represent them: My first instinct would be to protect them and ease their suffering which would mean withholding on being as factually accurate and perhaps blunt as I ought to be.

If you want a lawyer who is emotionally involved with you, that's your call. I however would want a lawyer who would give me good advice based on the strength of my case and not on how much she liked me.

I agree with what Sara says. It is not a good thing to become emotionally involved in your clients cases.

For one thing you have to protect your own emotional health. If you allow all your cases to be a burden on your own emotions, then if you are having a difficult time yourself you can end up shying away from tackling your work just because you can't face dealing with the extra emotional side. You are in fact more likely to fail to do a good job than if you are able to remain detached. I have seen colleagues who have burnt out through becoming too involved, and it has made a mess not only of their lives but of the cases they have left behind.

I try to do my utmost for all my clients, but I don't have to be emotionally involved to do so. In the few cases that I have, it has not always led to a good result, and a less involved colleague has been able to get the result for the client.

Secondly, I also would not like to represent anyone I knew well. It is almost inevitable that you will have to face them with difficult advice- whether it is questioning them about their recollect of facts because the way they are explaining it does not ring true or telling them that a decision they have made has in fact made the situation worse. Also, I need my client to be able to be honest with me. A client who knows they will never see me again after the case finishes will probably find it easier to tell me something unpalatable about themselves or something they are embarrassed about, than will a client who knows that they will see me at X's birthday party with all our friends the next week.

And finally, I would never tell a client what I would do if I was them. My job is to explain to them the options they have, with all the risks and benefits, and to give my opinion as to which I think is likely to have the best outcome. Which one would be the best for me to choose is not necessarily the best one for them to choose. I don't presume to know them in that detail or to manage their lives for them. My job as a lawyer is to give my client a voice in the legal process so they get the outcome they want, my voice and wishes are irrelevant.

Looks like I may have got this one wrong!

Apologies if I seemed rude- not my intention. I do not think it is wise for police officer to get emotionally involved with every victim they deal with as they would eventually burn out. The same applies to anyone dealing with potentially distressing situations on a daily basis such as social workers, doctors and paramedics. This is obviously easier said than done.

All good police officers/lawyers/doctors [insert professional of choice] have once thing in common; an ability to remain objective.

Only by reanining objective can you make rational and analytical judgements.

Once you allow the personal and the emotional to creep in, you lose your objectivity. In doctors this can result in mistakes, in coppers and lawyers in can result in the bending of rules ie corruption.

Of course emotionally involved coppers and lawyers make terrific fiction .

A month ago,I had to use the services of the police. And they had to send for paramedics.
While 2 police officers waited with me and some members of my family for the paramedices to arrive,1 poice officer dealt with phone calls,liason with the public etc,while the other one showed what I accepted to be genuine concern and compassion,for which we were all grateful.
Are you saying that the emotion that 1 police officer in particular showed,would not have been genuine, and she shouldnt have done it?

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick of what you are trying to say.

Concern and compassion is perfectly fine, indeed a requisite part of the job for all professionals...but that is very far from personal involvement. Had she needed to make a difficult judgement she could have done so.

I'm sure that officer went on about her business after she left you, able to go on and help others. As it shoud be.

What do you mean by personal involvement then.
Perhaps I am just made differently from others.
Or perhaps I have just not been tested in that way.

As in the example you gave earlier of wanting someone to represent you who knows you- I would define personal involvement as having a particular worry for the outcome and being upset for the other person if things are not going well. I would probably spend some of my personal non-working time thinking about how you are feeling.

The police officer who showed you care probably enjoys the side of her job which allows her to give emotional reassurance to the people she helps, but once her work on your case is finished she will probably walk away and forget about you. You may pop into her mind for time to time and she will think "I wonder what happened to that lady- I hope it all worked out ok for her", but she won't be troubled if she doesn't get to find out how you are getting on after the case is finished, and she won't be lying awake at night thinking about you.

That is what professionalism is about- yes, you care for your clients when you are working on their case, but you switch off that care when you are not working for them. And beyond that - that you treat each client's case with the same care and the same hope for a good outcome regardless of whether or not you care for them as a person. It would be wrong of you as a professional to put more effort and care into a case when you like a particular client than when you don't.

Personal involvement is when the professional has a vested emotional attachment to the outcome.

This is simply not a good thing fir any professional as it hinders judgement.

I know it seems counter intuitive, but any professional I've met who was good at the job would agree. That is why not many people are actually cut out to be good police officers/layers/doctors etc. Too many are attracted to these careers because of what they think the job entails.

I once worked on something involving an acquaintance. During the course of the process of reviewing the evidence I found out he had cheated on his wife through some unfortunate boastful emails he'd sent to his work colleagues (not relevant to the case). It took a fair bit of effort not to let them colour my view of the case because I it put a slight doubt in my mind about his credibility. Funnily we are not good friends and I would have really rather not known that about him.

Completely agree wordfactory. Once I walk out of court I forget my clients. Not because I am a heartless bitch because the next day I have to do it all again with another client. How can I do a good job for her if I have been up all night worrying about the previous client?

I hope that when with clients I always show proper compassion, sympathy and interest. But you have to focus on the case and the client in front of you so you need a clear head.

Some cases and clients do stick a bit because the are so sad, and as I said earlier a lot of people invovled in child pornography cases etc just can't carry on after a certain time because it is all so horrific.

I suppose I am not really a worrier. But I havent been put to the test with all of this,so I cant say for sure how I would react in a professional situation with someone I know.

But you yourself raised the idea of personal involvement by saying that you would prefer to be represented by someone who knows you? That suggests that you do envisage a difference between how you might act in relation to a person you know as a friend/relative and a person you only know professionally. Surely you do recognise in yourself that it would have more impact on you personally if you were told that your sister/mother/best friend had XYZ serious problem than if you heard that Mrs Smith who lives at the end of the road, but whom you only know to say hi to, had the same problem?

It sounds like you have made a previous inconsistent statement and are amending your evidence to suit the case to me!

I do not understand your first paragraph.
Are you talking about lawyers or doctors?
Also, I have come to realise,from your posts and others, that although I maybe, if I was a defence lawyer,because I dont worry much,could take on a case of someone I know, but other people may not be able to do that,without it causing them sleepless nights.

Sorry if I have been unclear. I had lawyers in mind, but the same would apply to a doctor, or any professional person who is tasked with solving problems for their client.

What you now seem to be saying is that problems that your family and close friends have do not worry you any more than you would be worried by a stranger having the same problem. You would not therefore find it difficult or problematic to bear the responsibility for solving that problem for someone who you knew well. However, in relation to someone helping you, you would expect that they would put more effort in to solving the problem if they knew you than if they did not, as they would have a reason to "go the extra mile".

You asked the rhetorical question earlier as to whether you are "made differently". I would suggest that if indeed you do not worry or suffer any anxiety when you bear the responsibility for solving difficult problems for your loved ones, then maybe you are "made differently" to the rest of us! I am not sure then why you would think that someone who knew you would be more inclined to become emotionally involved and "go the extra mile" if you find it peculiar that such investment would cause them worry.

I feel like I am getting drawn into a personal dissection, so don't feel you need to answer my post if this is getting too personal.

Understand and I think agree with your last post until I came to your last but 1 sentence. Then I became lost. Happy to answer the question I think,once I understand it.

i dont mix up compassion with personal involvement - but the stresses of the job do bother me.

when i go to jobs, i rarely find out what happens, and i think its much as WF says - i do switch off when i go home, i think by now, having been to many different and some very harrowing things, if you really got personally involved it would hurt., that has never stopped me from hugging someone who needs it, or doing what i can to help in a horrible or difficult situation.

the problem for me is the workload, watching my crime list grow, taking on more and more work without managing to sort anything out due to lack of numbers on group/time - i worry that i cannot give my best when im trying to do so many things at once.

its that i find difficult and stressful. its lack of time to do those things because the radio is going again.

sometimes though - solicitors must know they have someone guilty but know if they go no comment, they might get off on a technicality? i had a shoplifter caught red handed, but the witness didnt leave details with the store detective, and due to no one having seen the theft, they got off. it was my first shoplifter, i didnt have a clue about stock check evidence, so a member of a large criminal gang walked free. no one can tell me the solicitor didnt know that, she knew i didnt have stock check evidence, she knew if he went no comment he walked. im not sure i could do that with a clear conscience.