- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Defense Attorneys, have you ever represented a client that you knew was a colossal POS?
Posted on 3/26/26 at 10:02 am to Pettifogger
Posted on 3/26/26 at 10:02 am to Pettifogger
quote:
The part that creates the problem for me is zealous advocacy. When I was a litigator, I hated showmanship, creating conflict for advantage, etc. I respect it, I did it, but it wasn't natural to me. On the criminal side - especially at lower levels - it seems so much worse.
Correct
0
Posted on 3/26/26 at 10:03 am to Sus-Scrofa
It’s a question of morals vs ethics. From an ethics standpoint, a lawyer is required to provide the best defense possible to the client. Morality has no place in the process if the attorney is to truly provide a defense for the client.
You are literally forced to sacrifice your morals for ethics if you want to be a successful attorney. What is considered “good” ethically often necessarily contradicts what is “good” morally. No other profession has this moral/ethical dilemma, at least not in this dynamic anyway.
You are literally forced to sacrifice your morals for ethics if you want to be a successful attorney. What is considered “good” ethically often necessarily contradicts what is “good” morally. No other profession has this moral/ethical dilemma, at least not in this dynamic anyway.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 10:09 am to FAT SEXY
If the answer is no , they are not a real defense attorney.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 10:10 am to RandRules
quote:
What is considered “good” ethically often necessarily contradicts what is “good” morally. No other profession has this moral/ethical dilemma, at least not in this dynamic anyway.
The closest thing I could think of is "if you're a doctor would you let an evil person die on your operating table?"
Posted on 3/26/26 at 10:23 am to RandRules
quote:
It’s a question of morals vs ethics. From an ethics standpoint, a lawyer is required to provide the best defense possible to the client. Morality has no place in the process if the attorney is to truly provide a defense for the client.
You are literally forced to sacrifice your morals for ethics if you want to be a successful attorney. What is considered “good” ethically often necessarily contradicts what is “good” morally. No other profession has this moral/ethical dilemma, at least not in this dynamic anyway.
I'm inclined to reject the fundamental premise. Are soldiers immoral for flying across the globe to kill people in their home countries just because their government told them to?
Posted on 3/26/26 at 10:25 am to FAT SEXY
quote:
Defense Attorneys, have you ever represented a client that you knew was a colossal POS
Every defense attorney has.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 10:31 am to FAT SEXY
It's really not that complicated. Every person, regardless of being a POS or not, deserves representation in criminal cases. Odd how we have so many strict constitutionalists on this board and PT, but we argue about stuff like this.
PT board wants every single person who ever interacted with Epstein thrown in prison, who cares about facts, proof, etc. But they are all strict constitutionalists.
PT board wants every single person who ever interacted with Epstein thrown in prison, who cares about facts, proof, etc. But they are all strict constitutionalists.
This post was edited on 3/26/26 at 10:35 am
Posted on 3/26/26 at 10:33 am to Mushroom1968
quote:
Odd how we have so many strict constitutionalists on this board and PT, but we argue about stuff like this.
Not only strict constitutionalists but also folks that think that our gov't/judicial system is corrupt.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 10:35 am to Mushroom1968
quote:
It's really not that complicated. Every person, regardless of being a POS or not, deserves representation in criminal cases. Odd how we have so many strict constitutionalists on this board and PT, but we argue about stuff like this.
When the constitution was drawn up, the way things work currently were not what the FF's envisioned. I realize this is a slippery slope with regards to things like 2A, but I don't think Benji F envisioned judges releasing violent criminals back into society repeatedly.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 10:44 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
When the constitution was drawn up, the way things work currently were not what the FF's envisioned. I realize this is a slippery slope with regards to things like 2A, but I don't think Benji F envisioned judges releasing violent criminals back into society repeatedly.
I'm sure the man who wasn't willing to sacrifice fundamental liberty for temporary safety would just be thrilled with all the people on this thread aghast that someone accused of a crime is entitled to competent, zealous representation.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 10:45 am to FAT SEXY
Yes. You make the other side meet their burden of proof. You try to reach a fair settlement.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 10:47 am to FAT SEXY
I’ve represented dozens of criminal clients at jury trials. Many were guilty. I knew because of overwhelming evidence, or they told me.
I still defended them and held the State to their burden. I was fortunately able to attack that burden by pointing out missteps in procedure and/or “twisting facts” to poke supposed holes in the evidence. It’s how the system works.
There are so many codified procedural requirements that hardly any cop follows every one of them to a T. I would always exploit that. Even when it had absolutely nothing to do with whether my guy did it, just harping on a mistake makes the State look bad and whittles down that burden of proof just enough.
I still defended them and held the State to their burden. I was fortunately able to attack that burden by pointing out missteps in procedure and/or “twisting facts” to poke supposed holes in the evidence. It’s how the system works.
There are so many codified procedural requirements that hardly any cop follows every one of them to a T. I would always exploit that. Even when it had absolutely nothing to do with whether my guy did it, just harping on a mistake makes the State look bad and whittles down that burden of proof just enough.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 10:49 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
When the constitution was drawn up, the way things work currently were not what the FF's envisioned. I realize this is a slippery slope with regards to things like 2A, but I don't think Benji F envisioned judges releasing violent criminals back into society repeatedly.
Yeah it's not like John Adams was the defense attorney for the British soldiers who committed the Boston Massacre. And he never would've said something like this:
quote:
If, by supporting the rights of mankind, and of invincible truth, I shall contribute to save from the agonies of death one unfortunate victim of tyranny, or of ignorance, equally fatal, his blessings and years of transport will be sufficient consolation to me for the contempt of all mankind.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 10:52 am to FAT SEXY
compare it to this: an emergency room surgeon that operates on the bad guy that got shot by police.
It is his job...that is the way to look at representing the criminal of criminals.
It is his job...that is the way to look at representing the criminal of criminals.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 10:58 am to Ingeniero
quote:
If, by supporting the rights of mankind, and of invincible truth, I shall contribute to save from the agonies of death one unfortunate victim of tyranny, or of ignorance, equally fatal, his blessings and years of transport will be sufficient consolation to me for the contempt of all mankind.
If you are caught on camera, or have witnesses that can't be discredited, what sort of tyranny are you protecting your client from? You're equating being ripped from your bed at night for a crime you weren't involved in to committing homicide in Times Square
quote:
Yeah it's not like John Adams was the defense attorney for the British soldiers who committed the Boston Massacre.
The British were being attacked and responded. You think that's the same as forgetting to wear your ski mask when you rob a gas station and shoot the clerk?
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:00 am to RFK
quote:
I’ve represented dozens of criminal clients at jury trials. Many were guilty. I knew because of overwhelming evidence, or they told me.
I still defended them and held the State to their burden. I was fortunately able to attack that burden by pointing out missteps in procedure and/or “twisting facts” to poke supposed holes in the evidence. It’s how the system works.
There are so many codified procedural requirements that hardly any cop follows every one of them to a T. I would always exploit that. Even when it had absolutely nothing to do with whether my guy did it, just harping on a mistake makes the State look bad and whittles down that burden of proof just enough.
This is the slimy answer I was looking for. Thank you.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:03 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
I know, right?
We should want a society where the cops who are paid to protect us get to just to whatever they want.
We should want a society where the cops who are paid to protect us get to just to whatever they want.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:05 am to Joshjrn
To put a finer point on it, back when I was a PD, saying you couldn’t handle a case because of the allegations was considered a moral failing on your part. It was extremely rare and something people apologized for.
Yeah it’s very rare. I can’t even remember ever seeing a PD do this bc PDs know going in that they’ll have to represent some real scumbags. Plus, many of the defense bar are true believers who really want all criminals released. Those types are out there.
Yeah it’s very rare. I can’t even remember ever seeing a PD do this bc PDs know going in that they’ll have to represent some real scumbags. Plus, many of the defense bar are true believers who really want all criminals released. Those types are out there.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:05 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
f you are caught on camera, or have witnesses that can't be discredited, what sort of tyranny are you protecting your client from? You're equating being ripped from your bed at night for a crime you weren't involved in to committing homicide in Times Square
How exactly do you determine who gets no defense?
Posted on 3/26/26 at 11:05 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
If you are caught on camera, or have witnesses that can't be discredited, what sort of tyranny are you protecting your client from? You're equating being ripped from your bed at night for a crime you weren't involved in to committing homicide in Times Square
How was the camera footage obtained? How do you decide if a witness can be discredited? These sound like things that a defense attorney ensures.
This post was edited on 3/26/26 at 11:06 am
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News