Constance Marten/Mark Gordon case - lawyers have withdrawn?

[BobLobla]

Was just reading this … and he’s defending himself as his lawyers have withdrawn.

Is this very unusual? Why would this happen as, presumably, defence lawyers have loads of clients that are almost indefensible? What’s different about this case?

Prosecution case like a movie script, Mark Gordon says https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1ld16y9vmpo

If you say “I did it, but I am pleading not guilty, and you barrister need to tell the court I didn’t do it,” that would be a good reason to stop representing a client.

Lawyers have obligations to the court as well as their clients. If a lawyer was instructed in a manner that would require them to mislead the court deliberately, they can withdraw.

Client has asked him to say something in court that is contrary to the truth or to what the client has told him before.

or

Client no longer wants him to represent him.

Or

Client hadn't paid or refuses to pay whe paying on a private basis and court allows withdrawal.

Probably professional embarrassment.

It’s not a good look is it? He’s delusional . And highly manipulative, seemingly. Awful

I thought Gordon had sacked the lawyers himself? I may be wrong though - this case has dragged on and on for so long now I may have forgotten some of the details.

His barrister had a duty to act in Gordon’s best interests.

If Gordon admitted his guilt to his barrister, he would have been advised to plead guilty.

If Gordon had stupidly insisted on saying not guilty, his barrister had a duty to test the prosecution’s case against the defendant. They cannot advance an alternative version of events.

His barrister has a duty of confidentiality to his client so cannot tell the court what his client has said without his client’s permission to do so. A barrister must not mislead the court and make up another version of events that would obscure the truth.

Lawyer-client privilege and confidentiality are one of the main principles of the justice system.

Barristers and solicitors have a duty to the court, first and foremost so anything a client tells you that means you can no longer fulfill that duty would lead you to have to stop acting. Or client has fired him.

The judge told the jury that Gordon's barrister (John Femi-Ola KC) withdrew from the case. He did not sack his barrister.

As others have said, the most likely reason is that Gordon put his barrister in a position where he could not continue to represent Gordon whilst fulfilling his duty to the court. So, for example, if Gordon told his barrister he was guilty, he could plead mitigation, but he could not continue to represent him if he wanted to plead not guilty.

Lawyers have obligations to the court as well as their clients.

Actually it's ahead of their client.

Marten and Gordon found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c5yk23vpk91t

Surprised no one has responded to this. Shame on all those people who made excuses for her.

There’s a thread about the verdict elsewhere, maybe people don’t know about this one. It’s either chat or AIBU I think.

Oh really I did a search and couldn't find it. Il have another look if there's a more active one thanks

Just incase you haven’t found it -

Thread Link

Thanks for that! I hadn't seen that one