Should We Judge Lawyers for Their Clients?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Should We Judge Lawyers for Their Clients?

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Mr. Nice! posted:

The sixth amendment to the constitution guarantees the right to the counsel of your choice.

To catch you up, the response is "Aha, but the poor are given the choice of an assigned defender or nothing, so why should the rich be allowed to pay for their choice of lawyer? If being assigned a PD is not a violation of the right to choose your own counsel, why can we not force the wealthy to make the same choice?"

twodot posted:

If we get to that point it feels like the prevalence of horrible monsters might go down.

A) No it doesn't
B) The sixth amendment binds the government and not me
C) Even if I thought the sixth amendment was some sort of legal authority over me, I could argue it is morally incorrect and should be opposed through whatever mechanism available

You can't switch back and forth between "people have a legal right to counsel" and "I have a moral right to do whatever I want to try to negate that right because I'm not the government."

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jun 13, 2019

# ? Jun 13, 2019 21:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 15:26

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Dead Reckoning posted:

You can't switch back and forth between "people have a legal right to counsel" and "I have a moral right to do whatever I want to try to negate that right because I'm not the government."

I'm not trying to negate that right because once again, public defenders do and should exist.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 21:40

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

twodot posted:

If we get to that point it feels like the prevalence of horrible monsters might go down.

A) No it doesn't
B) The sixth amendment binds the government and not me
C) Even if I thought the sixth amendment was some sort of legal authority over me, I could argue it is morally incorrect and should be opposed through whatever mechanism available

Yes it does. See United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez.

To B & C - who the hell cares what authority it has over you. We're talking about the right to counsel in a trial which is by it's very nature a government function bound by the 6th amendment.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 21:40

Indeterminacy: Sep 9, 2011; Excuse me, your Rabbit parts are undetached.

twodot posted:

Someone has to do it, but no one has to solicit Weinstein to do it.
Weinstein's lawyers woke up one day and said "How should I spend my time? I know I will defend a wealthy and powerful horrible rapist because he can pay me loads of money"
Public defenders woke up one day and said "How should I spend my time? I know I will defend any client that crosses my desk, wealthy or not, guilty or not, horrible monster or not, because I want to work to achieve the principle that everyone deserves representation"
I do not need books to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys here.

So your beef is with lawyers who actively seek out wealthier clients who are willing to pay more than the rates for public defence for their services. That's fine, in which case the core of the problem is the profit motive. I don't think anyone will disagree with the idea that there is something more morally upstanding about defending the public interest than private, but it's a more interesting question to ask whether practicing law with the intention to profit is wrong, as opposed to merely not saintly.

If one were planning to pursue personal profit at the expense of public good, that sounds like the point at which it becomes wrong. But, and this perhaps where the "right to a defense" comes into it, you cannot argue that defending someone is an expense of public good when that someone has a legal right to a defense anyway. This is a duty that would need to be discharged at some point down the line, whether by the public defense office or by a private firm.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 21:42

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Mr. Nice! posted:

Yes it does. See United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez.

To B & C - who the hell cares what authority it has over you. We're talking about the right to counsel in a trial which is by it's very nature a government function bound by the 6th amendment.

No we're talking if people should go around saying "Weinstein's lawyers are dirtbags" or not. The six amendment has exactly no relevance to that question.
edit:

Indeterminacy posted:

So your beef is with lawyers who actively seek out wealthier clients who are willing to pay more than the rates for public defence for their services.

No if a lawyer offered to represent Weinstein for free, that is arguably worse. Public support of horrible monsters is bad no matter the service being provided. Criminal defense is just one service where everyone agrees that someone has to do it, so we need an appointment system for the cases where no lawyer is willing to represent someone.

twodot fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Jun 13, 2019

# ? Jun 13, 2019 21:42

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

twodot posted:

If we get to that point it feels like the prevalence of horrible monsters might go down.

Again, I bet you are right on Harvey�s guilt, but you can�t possibly be so dumb as to not see the flaw in denying lawyers to people ACUSED of crimes on the public�s gut feeling on who�s good or bad.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 21:43

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Indeterminacy posted:

So your beef is with lawyers who actively seek out wealthier clients who are willing to pay more than the rates for public defence for their services. That's fine, in which case the core of the problem is the profit motive. I don't think anyone will disagree with the idea that there is something more morally upstanding about defending the public interest than private, but it's a more interesting question to ask whether practicing law with the intention to profit is wrong, as opposed to merely not saintly.

If one were planning to pursue personal profit at the expense of public good, that sounds like the point at which it becomes wrong. But, and this perhaps where the "right to a defense" comes into it, you cannot argue that defending someone is an expense of public good when that someone has a legal right to a defense anyway. This is a duty that would need to be discharged at some point down the line, whether by the public defense office or by a private firm.

You can absolutely argue that the systemic effects of legal defence provided to rich and poor and the disparity between them is at the expense of public good and that attacking that disparity and the people who perpetuate it is to the public benefit.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 21:44

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

twodot posted:

No we're talking if people should go around saying "Weinstein's lawyers are dirtbags" or not. The six amendment has exactly no relevance to that question.

You can absolutely say that all you want. They might be. However, he still is entitled under the constitution to the counsel of his choice.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 21:46

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Again, I bet you are right on Harvey�s guilt, but you can�t possibly be so dumb as to not see the flaw in denying lawyers to people ACUSED of crimes on the public�s gut feeling on who�s good or bad.

I am not arguing we should deny lawyers to people accused of crimes, I'm saying that Weinstein's lawyers are personally and specifically dirtbags.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 21:48

Indeterminacy: Sep 9, 2011; Excuse me, your Rabbit parts are undetached.

OwlFancier posted:

You can absolutely argue that the systemic effects of legal defence provided to rich and poor and the disparity between them is at the expense of public good and that attacking that disparity and the people who perpetuate it is to the public benefit.

Of course, but that's a question about public policy and governance rather than about the practice of law. Bad politicians (and perhaps bad wealthy people in general who don't pay their due taxes) underfund public defense offices, not bad lawyers.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 21:49

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

twodot posted:

I'm not trying to negate that right because once again, public defenders do and should exist.

twodot posted:

I am not arguing we should deny lawyers to people accused of crimes, I'm saying that Weinstein's lawyers are personally and specifically dirtbags.

Your argument makes no goddamn sense though. If you think that Weinstein being unable to hire the lawyer of his choice will not affect the quality of his defense, then what harm are his lawyers causing that is worthy of opprobrium? If you think that Weinstein being unable to hire the lawyer of his choice will affect the quality of his defense, then you're pretty indisputably trying to deny him his right to effective counsel.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 21:50

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Dead Reckoning posted:

Your argument makes no goddamn sense though. If you think that Weinstein being unable to hire the lawyer of his choice will not affect the quality of his defense, then what harm are his lawyers causing that is worthy of opprobrium? If you think that Weinstein being unable to hire the lawyer of his choice will affect the quality of his defense, then you're pretty indisputably trying to deny him his right to effective counsel.

People should not volunteer to support horrible monsters. Sometimes you got to support horrible monsters so society will continue to function, like if a court appoints you to defend a horrible monster or you are an ER doctor, but when there is a choice as is the case with private defense lawyers, everyone should loudly and publicly decline to support the horrible monster.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 21:53

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Indeterminacy posted:

Of course, but that's a question about public policy and governance rather than about the practice of law. Bad politicians (and perhaps bad wealthy people in general who don't pay their due taxes) underfund public defense offices, not bad lawyers.

Maybe it's both? I like direct action. Protesting lovely lawyers is not incompatible with looking to make changes at a governmental level?

# ? Jun 13, 2019 21:56

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

twodot posted:

People should not volunteer to support horrible monsters. Sometimes you got to support horrible monsters so society will continue to function, like if a court appoints you to defend a horrible monster or you are an ER doctor, but when there is a choice as is the case with private defense lawyers, everyone should loudly and publicly decline to support the horrible monster.

If "horrible monsters" are equally entitled to legal representation or medical care as the rest of us, why does it matter if people work for them voluntarily out of a general sense that everyone deserves it, or are compelled to by professional ethics?

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:05

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

twodot posted:

People should not volunteer to support horrible monsters. Sometimes you got to support horrible monsters so society will continue to function, like if a court appoints you to defend a horrible monster or you are an ER doctor, but when there is a choice as is the case with private defense lawyers, everyone should loudly and publicly decline to support the horrible monster.

How, specifically do you know who�s a monster?

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:07

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Dead Reckoning posted:

Your argument makes no goddamn sense though. If you think that Weinstein being unable to hire the lawyer of his choice will not affect the quality of his defense, then what harm are his lawyers causing that is worthy of opprobrium? If you think that Weinstein being unable to hire the lawyer of his choice will affect the quality of his defense, then you're pretty indisputably trying to deny him his right to effective counsel.

If being forced to take a PD affects the quality of his defense then our justice system is a joke and all you are defending here is the rights of the rich to have justice where the poor don't. To which I say, gently caress all the way off.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

How, specifically do you know who�s a monster?

Good point, everyone should have access to a robust system of public defense, which no one has disputed yet in this thread so I guess maybe I was wrong when I said "good point"

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:07

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

How, specifically do you know who�s a monster?

Would you like to argue that weinstein is not?

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:08

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

OwlFancier posted:

Would you like to argue that weinstein is not?

It's a necessary function of our legal system that in the eyes of the law he is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do I think he's guilty? 100%. In the context of a legal proceeding, though, he is presumed innocent right now and is entitled to the attorney of his choosing.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:11

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Mr. Nice! posted:

It's a necessary function of our legal system that in the eyes of the law he is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do I think he's guilty? 100%. In the context of a legal proceeding, though, he is presumed innocent right now and is entitled to the attorney of his choosing.

And you are capable, therefore, of making a distinction between what people think and the judgements they can come to and what the legal system pretends as a part of its functioning, which I think should provide an answer to the question being asked?

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:13

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO: May 8, 2006

twodot posted:

horrible monsters

The last time I was confronted by someone who tried to shame me for representing criminals (and putting food on my table) it was literally a nazi, in Charlottesville Virginia, on the night of August 11 2017 just after the torch rally. It was the guy in the Arkansas Engineering shirt actually (he died later). He had some jeers about getting rich by keeping monsters and animals out of jail.

It�s disappointing, though maybe not surprising, to see people try to make the same argument about (((rich lawyers))) defending perverts like (((Weinstein))) with a woke gloss on it.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:17

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

OwlFancier posted:

And you are capable, therefore, of making a distinction between what people think and the judgements they can come to and what the legal system pretends as a part of its functioning, which I think should provide an answer to the question being asked?

The Central Park 5 were monsters in the court of public opinion and they were actually innocent.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:17

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Ah yes clearly the only reason people could object to weinstein is because of antisemitism.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:17

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

OwlFancier posted:

Would you like to argue that weinstein is not?

Is asking me for my gut feeling supposed to be a system of justice?

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:18

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Mr. Nice! posted:

The Central Park 5 were monsters in the court of public opinion and they were actually innocent.

That's nice, I'm still going to suggest that weinstein is a big rapist, you're welcome to argue against that if you like.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:19

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Edit- misread

Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Jun 13, 2019

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:19

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

OwlFancier posted:

That's nice, I'm still going to suggest that weinstein is a big rapist, you're welcome to argue against that if you like.

You're right. I'm not arguing against that.

He's still entitled to the attorney of his choice. Just as twodot is entitled to call that attorney a piece of poo poo.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:20

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Mr. Nice! posted:

Just as twodot is entitled to call that attorney a piece of poo poo.

I dunno are you not worried about the chilling affects that this might lead to other attorneys or minorities being called pieces of poo poo?

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:20

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Dead Reckoning posted:

If "horrible monsters" are equally entitled to legal representation or medical care as the rest of us, why does it matter if people work for them voluntarily out of a general sense that everyone deserves it, or are compelled to by professional ethics?

Choosing to support a horrible monster signals support in a way that being compelled to defend a horrible monster does not. Signaling support of horrible monsters is bad.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

How, specifically do you know who’s a monster?

By observing their actions and the actions of people around them. Do you like not make moral judgments of other people? I thought the topic of this thread kind of assumed everyone here knows how to moral judgments generally.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:21

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Mr. Nice! posted:

You're right. I'm not arguing against that.

He's still entitled to the attorney of his choice. Just as twodot is entitled to call that attorney a piece of poo poo.

And the moon orbits the earth. Any more inconsequential things you want to add to the conversation?

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:21

Kawasaki Nun: Jul 16, 2001; by Reene

Mmm I don't like this system but don't have any actual recommendations for a functional replacement so I'm just gonna go on the record and say I DONT LIKE IT!!!

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:23

Owlofcreamcheese: May 22, 2005; Can't post for 9 years!; Buglord

twodot posted:

Choosing to support a horrible monster signals support in a way that being compelled to defend a horrible monster does not. Signaling support of horrible monsters is bad.

By observing their actions and the actions of people around them. Do you like not make moral judgments of other people? I thought the topic of this thread kind of assumed everyone here knows how to moral judgments generally.

Like, you, random nobody internet guy can call him whatever you want if nothing you do will ever matter.

The idea that the criminal justice system should deny defense to people based on crimes they are accused of based on "that crime they got accused of is pretty bad" is so self obviously stupid I can't believe you are arguing in good faith and actually don't get that. The idea that it'd be okay because you would just gut feeling out which people were guilty ahead of the trial to know if they should get lawyers or not is absurd.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:24

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Indeterminacy posted:

This obviously doesn't render the lawyer in question immune from criticism, because it may well turn out that they are a lovely person, and them being a lovely person may well have something to do with the circumstances that led to them taking up this case. But the defense itself is not the problem.

Well then you agree with the lawyer shamers, because they're shaming him for the circumstances that led to him taking this case, and not the defense itself because as we've made clear a public defender defending Weinstein would be fine.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:24

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

The idea that the criminal justice system should deny defense to people based on crimes they are accused of based on "that crime they got accused of is pretty bad" is so self obviously stupid I can't believe you are arguing in good faith and actually don't get that. The idea that it'd be okay because you would just gut feeling out which people were guilty ahead of the trial to know if they should get lawyers or not is absurd.

Good thing no one said that.

Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jun 13, 2019

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:24

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Like, you, random nobody internet guy can call him whatever you want if nothing you do will ever matter.

The idea that the criminal justice system should deny defense to people based on crimes they are accused of based on "that crime they got accused of is pretty bad" is so self obviously stupid I can't believe you are arguing in good faith and actually don't get that. The idea that it'd be okay because you would just gut feeling out which people were guilty ahead of the trial to know if they should get lawyers or not is absurd.

No one at any point has ever said we should deny anyone a defense.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:25

DOCTOR ZIMBARDO: May 8, 2006

twodot posted:

Choosing to support a horrible monster signals support in a way that being compelled to defend a horrible monster does not. Signaling support of horrible monsters is bad.

I agree, anyone who associates willingly as the attorney of a rich, Jewish pervert is probably halfway to being a pervert themselves. Attorneys should denounce such clients and only accept them after being forced to by their professional ethics board.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:25

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

Nevvy Z posted:

I dunno are you not worried about the chilling affects that this might lead to other attorneys or minorities being called pieces of poo poo?

Attorneys are called pieces of poo poo every single day.

VitalSigns posted:

Well then you agree with the lawyer shamers, because they're shaming him for the circumstances that led to him taking this case, and not the defense itself because as we've made clear a public defender defending Weinstein would be fine.

Weinstein is entitled to the attorney of his choice. There are ethical considerations when it comes to declining or withdrawing from a case. By ethical, I do not mean hypothetical morals or anything. Professional ethics in the legal worlds carries fines and other punishments up to losing your license to practice law.

Also Weinstein is not entitled to a PD because he can afford private counsel.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:26

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

blarzgh posted:

That's not actually what it says. It says that not being able to post a bond generally results in more time spent in prison later.

Three big problems with this study:
1. Burglary/larceny cases only. Not alot of rich people stealing TVs for your sample.
2. Its from 1978
3. From the abstract:" Most of this effect could be explained by the low-income defendant's poorer opportunity for pretrial release." In other words, the additional time spent in prison post-conviction was likely the result of the inability of the prisoner to post bond before trial - their income levels did not affect conviction rates.

It also said that the inadequacy of defense counsel was a cause I guess you forgot to read that part, or maybe it was bad for your argument so you were hoping I didn't.

Anyway if your argument is that the justice system doesn't service the wealthy and actually the wealthy are disadvantaged by their lack of access to the PD system, then great because you don't have to agree with me and with the evidence that income correlates with outcome, because even if you are right that's still an argument for giving every defendant a public defender and funding the PD system appropriately.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:26

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

twodot posted:

Choosing to support a horrible monster signals support in a way that being compelled to defend a horrible monster does not. Signaling support of horrible monsters is bad.

But PDs and ER docs sign up knowing that they are going to be called upon to provide aid to horrible dirtbags. You're saying it's not OK for a doctor to agree to be Weinstein's personal physician because he's a monster, but if he has a heart attack and gets brought into the ED, it's not just acceptable but morally virtuous for a doctor there to take heroic measures to save his life, even if that doctor knows full well who Harvey Weinstein is? Why does stepping the moral choice back a remove and not knowing which particular dirtbag's life you will save somehow change the calculus?

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:27

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

It's a bit weird to be arguing for the justice system and simultaneously against the concept of blind obedience to the principle of equal service.

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 15:26

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Mr. Nice! posted:

Weinstein is entitled to the attorney of his choice.

This is obviously not true because private lawyers are entitled to turn down clients.

Mr. Nice! posted:

Also Weinstein is not entitled to a PD because he can afford private counsel.

Yeah that's bad.

But also, if he couldn't obtain counsel because those mean and nasty Harvard kids were so uncivil, he would pretty obviously have a sixth amendment claim if the state said "well you aren't poor so go pro se"

# ? Jun 13, 2019 22:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Should We Judge Lawyers for Their Clients?

«‹›20 »