To not understand how people can be lawyers?

[danniboi]

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.

If you suspect your client is guilty or have even been advised your client is guilty you don't necessarily have to enter a guilty plea. You can put the prosecution to proof - ie. they have to prove their case against your client. That is not the same as deliberately misleading the Court by putting forward a bullshit defence. Solicitors won't do that - its not worth their qualification. You would be removed from the Roll immediately if the Law Society got a sniff of that type of behaviour.

It is a challenging job and for every genuine victim, there is usually a victim who is not so truthful. Solicitors/Barristers are not out to get to anyone, but if they have instructions that the victim is lying in any way, then it is their job to ask questions and test the evidence. Usually this is done by invasive questioning.

It's not a perfect system by any means but I'd rather have our current criminal justice system than the justice system of other countries where defendants are worthless and no-one has the right to a fair trial.

It's all in a days work. Lawyer on opposing sides don't go home hating eachother 😂 in many cases they'll know each other, they may have been to uni or law school together, they may be friends or friends of friends, they may socialise together or have worked at the same practice or chambers at some point. It's a small circle.

Do you seriously expect them to treat the opponent's lawyer as a personal enemy?

Barristers for opposing clients can be from the same chambers - people whom they see every day and are on friendly terms with.

In the early fifties Elizabeth Butler-Sloss and Michael Havers, sister and brother and both young juniors (he went on to be Lord Chancellor and she to be President of the Family Division of the High Court) appeared against each other in a case where the judge was their father!

And to deal with the point about barristers shaking hands - the world of a criminal barrister isn't a large one. They often know each other, certainly if they've been appearing in Courts for several years. Often it will be that one barrister will be prosecuting a client one day and then defending another client the next day. They have to work alongside each other and often will be in discussions about how the case will proceed before it even starts. Information like admissibility of evidence/plea bargains etc. They have to be cordial to each other, you can't make an enemy of every barrister you're up against - it would be professional suicide.

You can't take the work home (well actually this job is usually working all hours) but certainly there isn't the time to dwell or stay emotionally connected to each client, as they usually have other cases that require their attention immediately afterwards. But every Solicitor and Barrister will have cases that will stay with them.

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

But she could have been lying?

I mean obviously I'm sure she wasn't. But some people genuinely would.

It's not personal, it's about giving everyone a right to a fair trial.

I'm happy to hear you got a good result and I hope your daughter can move on from it.

Exactly, opposite sides if the courtroom today, opposite sides of the dining table tomorrow

No-one ever knows for absolute certain their client is guilty unless they were there or the client has confessed. In the former event, they obviously wouldn't represent the client; in the latter, the rule is that they can't put forward a case that their client is innocent, but they are entitled to challenge the prosecution case because it's the prosecution's job to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The lawyers role is not to create the law, but to apply it. If there is any injustice it can come down to lack of evidence, credibility, loopholes in the law that Parliament must address etc.

Lawyers defend guilty people everyday, - not to get them off, but to ensure due process is followed.

It's not a job I could do but I am very glad others can. Everyone should have access to justice and legal representation, even those guilty of the most heinous crimes. And the better someone has been represented at trial, the less likely they will be able to successfully appeal later on (I think). I bet there are many lawyers who have dark moments reflecting on what their job has required of them: I doubt many, if any at all, are totally unaffected by it.

It takes a special kind of strength to be a criminal lawyer.

It wasn't something I ever considered.

You have to put your duty to the law way above your personal feelings and sometimes ethics and provide complete scumbags with the very best defence you can.

What's the alternative? The State just does what it wants to it's citizens? No thank you.

I agree with the comments made above.

But just to throw this in - it is so important that we invest in the Crown Prosecution Service (and the Judiciary). The CPS will prepare and present the case and it is key that they are able to attract and retain bright, ambitious lawyers and that they are not overloaded. If that service is lacking then our justice system will break down.

Twenty years ago, as a trainee, I spent a year in our now defunct Criminal Department (defunct due to Legal Aid changes) - they are cases even now that I think about and there was atleast one occasion where the barrister involved was very uncomfortable and unhappy with our clients instructions but was obliged to carry them out.

I can also recall incidents of witnesses lying or being mistaken/confused. It does happen.
It is a stressful process but when for example someone's liberty is at stake it needs to be.

I was a witness in a court case once and it was a horrible, upsetting experience. However, the barrister was just doing his job; it wasn't personal, even thought it felt that way to me.

It does boil down to the fact that everybody has the right to representation, and lawyers have to do the very best they can for their clients.

I hope your daughter is okay.

Depriving someone of their freedom is a huge power for the state to have. We need a robust system (which includes lawyers who may seem unkind) to make sure the state wields that power appropriately. I couldn't believe that justice had been achieved if it didn't mean lawyers (on both sides) testing the evidence rigorously.

I have been through the same thing but for an historical abuse case. I was the victim and cannot believe how I was treated by the lawyer defending the man who abused me. I was made to feel like a piece of dirt and I wasn't confident to fight back to him. I am a confident person normally but when you are in that stand and someone is treating you with such disdain, about something so personal and a topic you aren't used to talking about in public, I struggle to see how a victim is supposed to win? I am still struggling with what happened in that courtroom. I ask the same question as you OP, I chose my career and that disgusting lawyer chose his. I struggle to understand how he sleeps at night because what he does for money is despicable.

God!! Can you imagine if there were no lawyers??

I often “know” my clients did it in the sense that if I was down the pub discussing a case in the media or following something objectively from afar.

I don’t know for certain though and more importantly it’s not my job to decide that because my clients instructions are inconsistent or illogical that I “know” it’s not true and decide it shouldn’t be given airtime in court. They’re my instructions and I’m an advocate for my client to put their version to the court.

In the same way it would have been appalling if the first legal person your daughter confided in said “nah that doesn’t ring true for me” and that meant your daughters account went no further, you can’t just have a defense lawyer go “well he would say that, he’s a wrong in.”

As much as the defense lawyer and the ex were calling your daughter a liar, equally the prosecution and your daughter by refuting his version were calling him a liar.

Except obviously your daughter has truth on her side so her account stood up to scrutiny.

God!! Can you imagine if there were no lawyers??

☝️

Oops
Double post

In court obviously each side has to have legal representation.

What I can't get my head around are lawyers who represent already-convicted criminals in prison - such as Ian Huntley and Ian Brady. What kind of person would want to spend their time advocating for these people? I read that one of the men who butchered Lee Rigby to death with an axe outside barracks was suing for £100K, I think it was, for mental stress in prison or some such. Do the criminals come up with ideas for litigation, or do some lawyers go touting round for business?

Sorry your daughter had to go through this. I would say that the real question is how can anyone commit domestic violence, as that's the issue here :(

Lots of professions require you to switch off emotions and just focus, though. Police. Forensic pathologists. Criminal psychologists/psychiatrists. Undertaker. Some people can do it, some can't - I couldn't myself!

for your daughter

I find the lambasting of lawyers so tedious.

Yes, I get it OP. Your daughter was put through the ringer and you are hurting fr her. But you'd be the first to kick up a fuss or be posting this from the other side if she was the defendant in the same case and the defence lawyer hadnt done this.

Everyone in this country has a right to a fair trial. There have been too many instances of "victims" lying for this to take place without proper rigorous defence in all situations. Whilst that may seem unfair, I'd say it would be a hell of a lot more unfair if we didn't allow defendants the chance to defend themselves thoroughly, just as we expect the prosecution to provide a through prosecution.

Victim support should have been offered to your daughter to help with this. Again, it may not be perfect, but it's necessary and it's important to the general rule of law and human rights agenda that we have in this country.

As an aside: Can we also please stop having a go at lawyers in general? I'm not a criminal lawyer but I am so bloody fed up of people asusming that I just suck money out of poor defenceless people. I'm a sodding insolvency lawyer and my focus is on corporate recovery (i.e. saving jobs most of the time) so the generalisations wind me up time after time.

Lady-in-cement - (without commenting directly on the cases you have referred to) just because someone has been found guilty of committing a crime does not mean that a crime/failure of duty of care etc can not then be committed against them.
Prisoners and ex-offenders have rights which we should uphold regardless of their crimes.
So essentially it is the same reasoning as above.

I don't think it is quite the same reasoning, though. Some of these criminals' requests/demands are spurious and mischief-making, if not downright insulting to the victims. Ian Brady's lawyer, for example, wanted to carry out his wish to have his ashes scattered on Saddleworth Moor. How is this "duty of care" to a client?