Why are high profile criminal defense attorneys who charge $5000

>>2358517
due process

>>2358517
Everyone has a right to a fair trial no matter how reprehensible their crimes. That is what this country stands for with our Constitution.

>>2358522
>>2358526
Equality before the law would be achieved by having all lawyers be employees of the state and being assigned one at random to be your defense attorney.

>>2358517
You clearly don't understand how legal ethics and conduct works.

Lawyers have a professional and statutory duty to work in the best interests of their client. If they fail in that duty, they are liable to be kicked out of the profession entirely. In criminal matters, that duty is ramped up a shit ton due to the risk of fucking your client's case up and getting them thrown in prison.

>known criminal

You also misunderstand how the criminal justice system works in the western world. The reason the alleged criminal is going to trial is because the prosecution has to prove his guilt in a court of law. The most basic premise of every civilised legal system in the world is that people are innocent until presumed guilty.

A lawyer that continues to act for a client who has admitted that they committed the crime is immediately committing a breach of their professional duties if they don't cease to act immediately. In reality, you just don't tell your fucking lawyer whether you're guilty or not.

If a lawyer jumps to conclusions like you are, and passes judgement on their own client, then they have failed the first basic test which is to do the court's work for them and declare them guilty. By failing to act in such a scenario they may be straight up jeopardising the suspect's case.

>Why do they always dress themselves up as humble servants protecting the civil rights of poor oppressed crime bosses?

Because it is in their clients' interests for them to do so. Also, that is incredibly misleading.

>>2358541
>I'm not a sociopath you see, can't you see I'm professionally OBLIGATED to make up far fetched bullshit and convince a gullible bunch of simpletons serving as jurors to get my client off heheh :^)

>>2358537
>state is trying to charge you
>trust the state to prove your innocence

hoowee good luck with that one, bucko

>>2358549
>professionally OBLIGATED

Legally obligated. As in, you can be struck off for not going as far as you possibly can for your client within legal and moral bounds.

>make up far fetched bullshit

This is an offence and would lead to the lawyer getting done for perjury and losing their career and liberty. Lawyers are the most cautious people out there, the idea that they're all lying is absurd when they're the people who know exactly when people are lying.

At the same time, lawyers are godly at bending the truth. It's called persuasion. It's a basic part of advocacy. Just because you're too stupid to see the point of it doesn't mean it's wrong.

>convince a gullible bunch of simpletons serving as jurors to get my client off heheh :^)

Ignoring that this is mostly just a flaw of the historical development of the common law legal systems and not the fault of the lawyers themselves, the whole point of the entire fucking system is that it is adverserial, so there will be a prosecutor on the other side whose entire job it is to convince the jury of the opposite view. It's why the system has worked so well for centuries.

The only real problem now, especially the UK, is that the poor are quickly being priced out of being able to afford legal fees due to cuts in financial assistance to parties.

>It's another "law is bullshit and I know this because I watched Dexter" post:

The crowning achievement of the American justice system isn't ensuring 100% conviction in all cases, but granting the defendant rights.

Historically speaking, lots and lots of people were wrongfully accused and convicted and considered guilty on accusation alone, which is a greater travesty than someone guilty walking free.

All of the replies in this thread keep dancing away from the idea that most lawyers are scum who end up drinking themselves into an early grave because of the guilt.

>>2358517
The difference between a settlement and blackmail is the presence of a lawyer.

Because you're innocent until proven guilty no matter the evidence against you.

>>2358594
Lawfag here. If you do your duty to your client and the court, you've done enough. If the other party has a shit lawyer, that is their problem.

It isn't most. It is an unscrupulous few that have damaged the public's trust in the profession.

>>2358609
Either way dirty jobs exist and they're often acknowledged as being dirty, why is the notion that representing El Chapo with his meticulously laundered hundred dollar bills as dirty so offensive?

>>2358625
Because social disapproval is a thing. Despite popular belief, lawyers are people who don't like being maligned and despised by pretty much everybody, especially people who they try to help.

Most lawyers now tend to want to go into corporate where they get well paid and don't have to risk public loathing for doing their job to the best of their ability. It takes a set of balls to become defence. You don't get paid shit (unless you're the top 0.5% or a QC) and your client is usually a foreign scumbag who is very likely to be guilty otherwise the Police wouldn't have bothered dragging them to court.