pull down to refresh

90 sats \ 4 replies \ @siggy47 26 Nov \ on: Legal Nonsense to Justify Non-Judicial Killings Politics_And_Law
The second type of lawyer would instead come up with whatever legal reasoning was necessary to please the client, stretching case law and legal analysis in such as way as to justify what the client wanted to do. This type of lawyer had no integrity. His task, as he saw it, was to provide legal cover for his client in case things went the wrong way.
I have seen plenty of this.
write
preview
36 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Nov
Stereotypes would suggest that's the more common type.
I'm actually pretty curious about how attorneys should balance this. The idea that everyone deserves the strongest possible defense (which I mostly agree with) suggests that being the second type of attorney doesn't require a lack of integrity.
reply
69 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 26 Nov
That's right. The real slimebags, though, will convince a client of a ridiculous legal theory just to earn a fee.
reply
36 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 26 Nov
I can see that
reply
69 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 26 Nov
Presumably our adversarial legal, political, and economic systems are designed to function well even when people are acting like total dickheads. I think there's some truth to it, actually
reply