Should We Judge Lawyers for Their Clients?

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

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

OwlFancier posted:

No who they choose to defend is important too, when the law functions to entrench inequality and injustice then choosing to defend the rich and powerful absolutely reflects on the individual and cannot be excused by some "oh everyone's entitled to a defence" schtick.

I buy the "private legal practice entrenches inequality" argument, but it seems like you're arguing that law itself has been compromised. Sure, gently caress da polis, there is no ethical agency under capitalism, mass revolution now or bust etc. etc. but hypothetically speaking, there are always going to be multiple different avenues of legal representation and specialization in as much as any kind of codified system of social standards of action exists, even if you completely overhaul the system. I don't think this question disappears just because we live in a socialist utopia.

# ¿ Jun 9, 2019 13:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 05:41

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

Unoriginal Name posted:

In what way does removing private funding and publicly funding defense lawyers harm minorities

If the state is insistent on lawyers being more accessible to the wealthy/white/powerful, then recognising that the public purse is limited, publicly funding all defense lawyers and submitting the same kind of legal representation for people across the board means when savings are needed, the cuts are made to those who serve the poor/black/vulnerable.

In effect, the problem remains, and now the powerful get free legal representation.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2019 11:48

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

twodot posted:

No one is being denied representation, so I have no idea why people keep repeating "Everyone deserves representation", a fact that everyone agrees with.

The conversation has gotten a bit weird. So let's make a thesis statement:

I think it is correct that Harvey Weinstein has to pay for his legal defense, as a person of wealth, and that accepting payment for this legal defense should not be a matter of shame, because someone has to do it.

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.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2019 21:02

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

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

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