- 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: Question for judges and attorneys...Where does your morality (if any) come into play ?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:32 pm to riccoar
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:32 pm to riccoar
Bob Kardashian representing you in a criminal case would have gotten the needle for a simple assault charge.....and to his credit he knew it. Kardashian was more of a businessman than attorney and he made no bones about it. He did know entertainment law and contracts as it applied to publications, etc.
His great talent was that he knew very good celebrity lawyers like Bob Shapiro and knew how to convince them.
Him not taking the lead and not representing OJ was him doing a favor to OJ.
His great talent was that he knew very good celebrity lawyers like Bob Shapiro and knew how to convince them.
Him not taking the lead and not representing OJ was him doing a favor to OJ.
0
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:45 pm to loogaroo
I believe it’s necessary for everyone to have a defense in order for the criminal justice system to work. There are some heinous crimes that I won’t touch( e.g., abuse of a child).
Posted on 5/21/24 at 1:03 pm to VOR
Yeah, I'm running from that fast. But I know a former ADA who's a woman with kids who will represent and do so without blinking.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 1:07 pm to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
It's not my job to insert my moral convictions relative to how I represent a client.
What if you know they are guilty of a terrible crime?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 1:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How? I have kept them consistent and even attempted to educate people on their own logical issues (trying to conflate creation of law with the practice of law).
Those are your logical issues; I’ve used your quotes.
The fluidity referred to your willingness to discuss such issues. You want to make fact claims then run from defending them because “that’s not what this thread is about.” It’s weird as hell.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 1:12 pm to Flats
quote:
. You want to make fact claims then run from defending them because “that’s not what this thread is about.” It’s weird as hell.
Examples?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 1:26 pm to loogaroo
I would never defend a guilty person
Posted on 5/21/24 at 1:26 pm to riccoar
quote:
The biggest difference is whether you can afford your own counsel. That matters more than people will admit.
This is absolutely true.
At the end of the day, Public defenders work for the government. Nothing bad happens to them if they frick up your case.
Nothing inspires me as a lawyer more than than the fact that a client trusts me enough to hand over the worst problem they’ve ever had. It just triggers a level of mama bear in me like nothing else will. Whether my client is at fault or not- my sole responsibility is to make sure they don’t get railroaded. I will not stand for that.
It’s corny to say, but I’m proud of what I do. We’ve all got a forgiven rig but to get a fair shake when the government is involved. There’s nothing that pisses me off more than seeing the wheels of justice crush someone.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 1:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's a system that Western society is built on, built on rules and evidence. Most of all, it's a service/job.
Sorry but its an ongoing investigation so I can 't comment until the statue of limitations have expired.
Sorry we prosecute, that is an old case in which the SOL has expired.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 2:30 pm to Pettifogger
You wouldn't work much if you were a lawyer , then.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 2:31 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
You wouldn't work much if you were a lawyer , then.
I'm swamped with work baw
Posted on 5/21/24 at 2:32 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
I'm swamped with work baw
Not as an attorney. Clearly.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 2:34 pm to BBONDS25
why's that
Posted on 5/21/24 at 2:35 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
why's that
You think you can definitively know if your client is guilty (either criminally) or at fault in a civil matter before you agree to represent them. No attorney would make such an absurd claim.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 2:36 pm to Pettifogger
Barry getting sassy. Someone hasn't had his mud bath and glass of pink wine yet today.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 2:39 pm to BBONDS25
Well first, I do largely M&A
But second, even before I moved to 95% transactional my civil matters rarely had many questions of moral culpability to them, on either side.
I think there are huge swaths of the law where moral quandaries just aren't as prevalent as the public thinks. It's been a long time since I've had a serious ethical/moral dilemma in law that stemmed from the substance of a matter. Things on the periphery maybe (conflicts, what a fellow attorney may or may not have done properly and how to handle, etc.) but that's no different than any other profession IMO.
But second, even before I moved to 95% transactional my civil matters rarely had many questions of moral culpability to them, on either side.
I think there are huge swaths of the law where moral quandaries just aren't as prevalent as the public thinks. It's been a long time since I've had a serious ethical/moral dilemma in law that stemmed from the substance of a matter. Things on the periphery maybe (conflicts, what a fellow attorney may or may not have done properly and how to handle, etc.) but that's no different than any other profession IMO.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 2:42 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Well first, I do largely M&A But second, even before I moved to 95% transactional my civil matters rarely had many questions of moral culpability to them, on either side.
Still. It is rather naive and disappointing for any lawyer to make the statement you made. You should know better. Sad.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 2:44 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Still. It is rather naive and disappointing for any lawyer to make the statement you made. You should know better. Sad.
What a bizarre thing to say
Posted on 5/21/24 at 2:46 pm to Pettifogger
Anyone that has ever been to court would agree. I guess if you’ve never been to court it’s just naivety and not disappointing.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 2:46 pm to Pettifogger
Bonds is the final arbiter of all things lawyer around here.
Page 12 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News