Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To not understand how people can be lawyers?

121 replies

danniboi · 25/10/2017 14:43

DD was in court today, domestic violence. She had to leave as she was so upset.

How can lawyers do that to victims? Not being arsy, just don’t get it.

OP posts:
KarateKitten · 25/10/2017 15:11

I get that you're upset OP but your anger is misdirected.

Also as with any job, there are good and bad lawyers.

In the U.K. (Different to the US) lawyers are not 'trying to get their client off' they are trying to get them a fair trial. In the U.K. it's unethical (illegal?) to lie for your client or hide information you have about the client and the case. People watch too much US TV shit where lawyers supposedly try to get their client off at all costs. Here it's about a fair trial and the lawyers opinion of their client being an asshole is of zero consequence. They must represent them fully and in compliance with the law.

If lawyers can use loopholes or put victims on the stand etc. then your argument is with the legal system, not the lawyers.

flyingpigsinclover · 25/10/2017 15:13

Sorry for what your daughter has been through, and you.

I think the thing to remember is that the person who was violent to her is the person responsible for what the lawyer has been saying in court. The lawyer, however unpleasant, is saying what she/he is being paid to say and they probably don't like it any more than you do. Lawyers sometimes have to say things that they don't like and are having to leave their feelings at the door.

KarateKitten · 25/10/2017 15:18

And just another point, Criminal Lawyers are not 'defending the indefensible', they are representing people charged with a crime. They don't necessarily like them, believe them or have any particular feeling about these clients either way. It's a pretty special area of the law. They're also not necessarily trying to get them acquitted, contrary to Hollywood belief, they're trying to get them a fair punishment for what they did in most cases. As per the law.

Lawyers are instruments of the law, not policy or lawmakers.

Ceto · 25/10/2017 15:21

It wasn’t the questions. It was the accusation of some things, making out like she was a liar.

But the problem is that people do tell lies; you know your daughter wasn't lying, but no-one else in court knows that. If you were in the dock accused of something by a witness who was lying and making things up, you would absolutely want your lawyer to try his or her best to expose that in court.

McTufty · 25/10/2017 15:23

Sorry about your daughter OP and sorry she is upset Flowers

If it is any consolation, while it is a lawyer’s responsibility to put their client’s case as best as they can (which is a good thing for society and the only way we can have a functioning justice system), most lawyers take no pleasure in upsetting a witness, especially a DV victim who is found to be truthful.

Being a lawyer is great in so many respects, but is not always a nice job.

SenecaFalls · 25/10/2017 15:25

It's unethical, criminal even, for lawyers in the US to lie to the court. Lots of misconceptions on this thread about criminal justice in the US.

x2boys · 25/10/2017 15:26

Apart from my experience with dh my Uncle is a defence QC ,his speciality is in murder trials and hes worked on some notorious cases. I don't suppose it's an easy job at all but it is necessary job

K0729P · 25/10/2017 15:28

I feel for your daughter OP.

I studied law and always promised myself I wouldn't get into criminal defence (with background I still couldn't bring myself to defend a rapist/paedophile). However, on the flip side, it is their job to defend and look for any slip up or loophole to jump on.

2014newme · 25/10/2017 15:31

Most lawyers don't do criminal law! There's lots of types of lawyers!
But no I personally wouldn't want to represent some accused of dv etc.
But the majority of lawyers don't do that type of law. I know lots if lawyers none if them do criminal work

OnionShite · 25/10/2017 15:31

Well for a start, the very large majority of lawyers don't work in criminal defence. So even if you did take the view that it's wrong on principle to be a defence lawyer (it's not) then that's actually got about as much relevance to most members of the legal professions as it does to chartered surveyors or nurses.

But yeah, be careful what you wish for. The alternatives are all worse. That's not to say we couldn't improve the way in which domestic violence victims are treated in the legal system. Adversarial systems aren't the only way, either. I imagine today was pretty awful and I hope your DD is pleased with the result.

makeourfuture · 25/10/2017 15:32

Our system is very adversarial. I would like to think that it should be instead a way to find the truth.

BaDumShh · 25/10/2017 15:38

Can any of the lawyers in here answer me this: why is it seen as acceptable that a rape victim has their previous sexual history dragged out by the defence lawyer? Surely it’s irrelevant to the case in hand?

McTufty · 25/10/2017 15:40

@BaDumShh

Yes it is almost always irrelevant to the case. It is very rare that a rape complainant is cross examined about her sexual history. It can happen if judge thinks it is relevant, which does happen on occasion, but as a general rule such questions are not allowed.

Papafran · 25/10/2017 15:43

Can any of the lawyers in here answer me this: why is it seen as acceptable that a rape victim has their previous sexual history dragged out by the defence lawyer? Surely it’s irrelevant to the case in hand?

It is inadmissible unless it is specifically relevant to the case. It is incorrect to say that it is ALWAYS irrelevant. However, in the vast majority of cases, it is not admissible and has not been for many years.

Amd724 · 25/10/2017 15:51

Seneca, it is criminal for lawyers on both sides to lie in court. But they do it. They do it in the UK as well. It’s illegal for the prosecutor to suppress evidence that could exonerate the defendant. But they do it. Often. Without reprecussions. It’s why a good defence team is vital, to making sure they find the necessary information needed to ensure the defendant is getting a good trial.

My Uncle is a defense attorney in the States, and I have a lot of friends who hare defense attorneys throughout the States. Most of the time they complain about how little the prosecutors office wants to work with them to make sure the evidence they’re presenting is admissible and irrefutable. To me, a good defense attorney is such a vital part of the legal system.

makeourfuture · 25/10/2017 16:01

Most of the time they complain about how little the prosecutors office wants to work with them to make sure the evidence they’re presenting is admissible and irrefutable

Well yes. Another "problem" with the US system is that mandatory sentences are very high now (statute). And monetary bail requirements can often be way out of the reach of the accused. Too, public defenders are stretched. It puts the accused at a tremendous disadvantage, but more so taints the whole system.

SandyY2K · 25/10/2017 16:19

The lawyer was doing their job.... but I'm glad your DD got the outcome she did.

In the U.K. (Different to the US) lawyers are not 'trying to get their client off' they are trying to get them a fair trial. In the U.K. it's unethical (illegal?) to lie

^ This is very naive.

Any lawyer wants to get their client off and yet every lawyer would also say they want a fair trial.

There are lawyers in every country who 'know' their clients are guilty and still defend them.

A lawyer will always try and discredit witnesses for their clients benefit.

onlyconnect · 25/10/2017 16:22

A conviction is all the stronger if there has been a full and rigorous defence.

KarateKitten · 25/10/2017 16:33

Sandy, you are right about some lawyers but the code of ethics for barristers in the U.K. is strong in general. And I know for a fact that barristers are not trying to unilaterally get their clients off. They are trying to get them the best deal they can for what the court decides they have done within the legal framework.

verbaIkint · 25/10/2017 16:43

OP I know how it feels. I also understand the need for it. Regardless of that it is horrendous to be called a liar and have your whole character (or what's left of it after DV) shredded apart in front of 12 strangers. It's horrific and it's sad. I'm sorry for your daughter.
I think until you've been through it then it's easy to stand there saying why it's absolutely necessary.
The defence lawyer called me a liar when I was sexually assaulted after an attempted murder, that I was just making it worse for him. That I was a jealous liar with mental health problems and shouldn't be believed. How dare she call me a liar, how fucking dare she. She wasn't there. She wasn't the one laid in a rape clinic. She wasn't the one who fought the bastard off. I did often wonder how she slept at night. I would often write her letters in the early hours of the morning and then throw them away. I'll never forget her.

messyjessy17 · 25/10/2017 16:45

How can lawyers do that to victims? Not being arsy, just don’t get it

Because it has to be done. How do you suggest we do it then?

OnionShite · 25/10/2017 17:01

There are lawyers in every country who 'know' their clients are guilty and still defend them.

The use of inverted commas is extremely important there. Are you suggesting they actually know, or just strongly suspect?

Andrewofgg · 25/10/2017 17:05

A lawyer acting for the defendant in crime is not there to judge the case and that lawyer's private view of the client's guilt or innocence is neither here nor there. Unpopular people charged with unpopular offences are entitled to be properly defended.

sickynicky · 25/10/2017 17:18

My ex DH had allegations made against him by a police officer - complete lies. His lawyer, on the first day of trial had the case thrown out and the police officer was then called to account.

I'm sorry for your daughter though OP

MatildaTheCat · 25/10/2017 17:19

Unless you have experienced a trial and having been cross examined it's really very difficult to express just how traumatic the experience is. The defence barrister will do their utmost to discredit you and intimidate you, if allowed.

They switch tactics in questioning constantly which makes it almost impossible to collect your thoughts and phrase questions which are tricky to understand and require careful thought on the spot, just as you are as stressed as you can be.

The trial I was involved with was almost entirely spent with each barrister discrediting each witness. I agree that whilst clearly they are necessary to the justice system, it's a strange way to live. Having said that there is a vast sense of vindication at the right result.

The strangest thing was, after massive dramas and posturing in court, the opposing barristers would shake hands at the end of the day and trot off home with no hard feelings.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread