Do solicitors believe their clients are innocent?

[chipperhead]

When defending a client and they are pleading not guilty, does the guy admit to his solicitor his guilt and then they both work out a fantasy story to get him off or does the client insist his innocence and his solictor does his best to get him off?
If a solicitor does know of their guilt how can he do his best to keep perhaps a peadophile or rapist from justice.
If someone like Fred West came to me and said he'd killed a dozen women there's no way I'd be trying to get him off.

 

[Sp00n]

It's their job to defend their client, regardless, I would assume, but they can't lie.

 

[Raymond Lin]

They based their argument on the fact.

They can NEVER lie in court, if they know their client is guilty, or been told by the client that he is guilty but the client told the opposite to the police then he can only argue the facts that he is told.

It's not as dramatic as television.

 

[Stewy]

I'd be quite interested to know too

 

[Van Hellseek]

They don't care in the slightest.

They believe in being paid. That is all.

 

[bushmins]

Thats why solicitors are evil. Just think of how a solicitors career would rocket if he got 'Fred West' off the hook. He would have no end of high class work.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

1st off, I belive you are getting confused between the functions of a solictor and the functions of a barrister. A solicitor will usually handle civil or minor criminal matters. A barrister usually handles the more complex civil cases that are heard in a crown court, those in the high court and those of a serious criminal nature. To complicate matters further, barristers are generally retained or instucted by a solictor. The real difference is a solictor has a power of attorney and a barrister does not. Right, now that's cleared up, onto your question:-

Sometimes they know, sometimes they don't Regardless, they'll do thier best for their client

If a solicitor does know of their guilt how can he do his best to keep perhaps a peadophile or rapist from justice.

Money?

If someone like Fred West came to me and said he'd killed a dozen women there's no way I'd be trying to get him off.

You'd probably not make a very good lawyer then!

 

[Raymond Lin]

They don't care in the slightest.

They believe in being paid. That is all.

They do care about their Practicing Certificate.

 

[[TFU] Thegoon84]

OJ simpson's Lawyer now there's a god dam god Solicitor! However Johnnie Cochran one of OJ's main Lawyer did die of a brain tumor... so prehaps Karma?

 

[Raymond Lin]

1st off, I belive you are getting confused between the functions of a solictor and the functions of a barrister.

He has a point.

Most Solicitors do not have Rights of Audience in the Crown Court, and Judges will "ignore" them.

Solicitors will gather the facts of the case, and the instruct Counsel. Informing Counsel of the facts, and tactics involve in best way to defend the case.

The prosecution is doing exactly the same in the other side.

It's perfectly fair if you think about it. To think that "he should just give in", because of the idiot client admitted his guilt is silly. Besides, if that happens, most Solciitor will apply to come off the record anyway, as I said, you can't lie. contrary to popular belief by the masses

 

[Raymond Lin]

OJ simpson's Lawyer now there's a god dam god Solicitor! However Johnnie Cochran one of OJ's main Lawyer did die of a brain tumor... so prehaps Karma?

In the US they are different, they have Attorneys, they don't have Solicitor and Barrister.

 

[[TFU] Thegoon84]

In the US they are different, they have Attorneys, they don't have Solicitor and Barrister.

Same thing tho!

Just reading up on Johnnie now.... interesting!

"IF it dont fit.... you aint done **** would have been better tho

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4392577.stm

 

[Greebo]

They based their argument on the fact.

They can NEVER lie in court, if they know their client is guilty, or been told by the client that he is guilty but the client told the opposite to the police then he can only argue the facts that he is told.

It's not as dramatic as television.

Wrong. I know of a couple of solicitors who you tell them the truth and exactly what you did and they try and get you off when you plead not guilty.

 

[G-MAN2004]

They based their argument on the fact.

They can NEVER lie in court, if they know their client is guilty, or been told by the client that he is guilty but the client told the opposite to the police then he can only argue the facts that he is told.

It's not as dramatic as television.

That's a bit naive isn't it? You think some solicitors wouldn't try their luck at winning a case if they knew they had a good chance, just because they know their client is guilty?

The people I've spoken to in that area couldn't care less tbh, it's all talk about money, not morals.

 

[Pookie Bear]

My friend is a public defender (or whatever they're called) and, in his own words, he is not paid to make moral choices or judge his clients, he is paid to get them the best result possible for them.

His beliefs have nothing to do with it. I would imagine that plenty of people in PR, Sales and Journalism (amongst others) may not agree with what they do, but it's a job and sometimes you have to suck it up and do what needs to be done.

 

[Pestilence]

I should be able to find out when I next have a word with the in-laws. I believe the S-I-L's husband was a criminal defense lawyer, and he really didn't like having to defend some serious scumbags. Still, it was what he was paid for.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Wrong. I know of a couple of solicitors who you tell them the truth and exactly what you did and they try and get you off when you plead not guilty.

Then they should be disbarred, simple as that - Raymond is perfectly correct in what he says a solicitor should do. Any solicitor has a duty to the court and to the truth - if the solicitors you know are breaking that then they should be investigated and if the allegations are true then have their right to practice revoked.

That's a bit naive isn't it? You think some solicitors wouldn't try their luck at winning a case if they knew they had a good chance, just because they know their client is guilty?

The people I've spoken to in that area couldn't care less tbh, it's all talk about money, not morals.

You don't necessarily have to lie to win a case, it's about getting the best result for the client and that often means that while you may know or suspect their guilt you make damn sure that the prosecution has to prove their case - your client can be guilty as original sin but if the prosecution fails to prove their case then they cannot be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (for criminal matters) hence are not guilty under the English system, under the Scottish system they might get not proven. Present what evidence you have in its most favourable light but you are not allowed to lie to the court as a solicitor - whether that is always adhered to is another matter...

 

[Raymond Lin]

That's a bit naive isn't it? You think some solicitors wouldn't try their luck at winning a case if they knew they had a good chance, just because they know their client is guilty?

The people I've spoken to in that area couldn't care less tbh, it's all talk about money, not morals.

Exactly, they don't care, sometimes they don't even care about the money sometimes, it won't be their only case, it will be one of the hundreds.

They do the best for the client as the prosecution is doing the best for the CPS.

What they won't do is directly lie. Even if they know he is guilty. I never said he won't defend the client, i said he cannot lie. There is a difference, which you missed.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Most people here think Solicitors are scum and they don't think there are lots of conduct matters involved, there is even a rule book on it.

 

[Greebo]

Then they should be disbarred, simple as that - Raymond is perfectly correct in what he says a solicitor should do. Any solicitor has a duty to the court and to the truth - if the solicitors you know are breaking that then they should be investigated and if the allegations are true then have their right to practice revoked.

What they won't do is directly lie. Even if they know he is guilty. I never said he won't defend the client, i said he cannot lie. There is a difference, which you missed.

I'm not saying they lie (although they migh, who knows), I'm just saying they know their client is guilty and use the facts to put as much reasonable doubt into the defence case as possible.

Or are you saying if the defendant says he did it, the solicitor has to tell this fact in court?

In my opinion you can know your client is guilty by been told it and still defend him without lying.

Case in point as follows:

Client drinking in the pub, drives home. Police want to pull him over, he doesn't stop and parks outside his house leaving his engine running and runs inside the house and was downing a large glass of whiskey when the police caught up with him. Of course, he later failed the breath test.

He hired a top notch solicitor from London who case to defend him in the local rural court.

In court the solicitor had the policeman on the stand and asked him how full the glass was when they caught his client. The policeman indicated how much. The solicitor then brought out many different height and width glasses and went on to prove that the quantity of liquid each glass held varied greatly even to the same height so his client could have drunk enough to put him over the drink drving limit.

The prosecution failed to keep the glass from his house so because there sufficient doubt he got let off the drink driving charge.

Now I know for a fact that he knew his client was guilty and he specialises in getting people off drink driving/speeding. However, he didn't need to lie in court to do this and unlikely anybody is going to ask him whether his client is guilty?