There's nothing wrong with a lawyer distorting the truth.

>>136999654
It's unethical.
t. Immanuel Kant

>>136999654
The law should be intellectually honest.
Lawyers should try to reach the client's desired conclusion through factual evidence.
If none exists and there is evidence the client did indeed commit a crime the client deserves punishment.

This isnt business this is Law.

is anyone arguing this? is this a worthwhile issue now, with everything happening in the world? public defenders win every now and then, you know.

>>136999654
It would make sense especially for corporate lawyers but I guess once you reach the government then you have to be ethical

>>137000139
Good luck with that. I'm a lawfag and I had a professor who began each year by showing us a recording of a court case that was aired several years ago. In it a guy was accused of bringing a weapon to a public park and he represented himself in court. The guy correctly argued that the butcher's knife he brought technically did not qualify as a weapon under the law he was accused of breaking. He was a stuttering mess though and made several mistakes in court regarding the use of evidence. He ended up convicted even though he was 100% in the right.

At the end my professor used to say: "this is why you hire a lawyer to fight your legal battles; 50% of winning a court case is being right and the other 50% is knowing how to convince the judge you're right".

>>137000139
Lawfag here. Let me explain how it works.

In the UK we have the SRA Code of Conduct, which outlines exactly how you should act through a series of mandatory principles and outcomes, and recommended advice on what to do in certain situations.

You have a duty to both your client and the court. Every single client, especially in a criminal setting, has a right to be defended. It is always up to the prosecution to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the respondent committed the crime. It's the most basic principle of all sane legal systems that the presumption is one of innocence.

It is completely up to the prosecution to bring their evidence and persuade the court that the defendant committed the crime, discharging the evidential burden required. The defendant and his lawyer can just sit there and do nothing, or they can poke holes and undermine the "factual evidence". It may seem intellectual dishonest, but everyone deserves their day in court. If the evidence gets damaged by a flippant argument then it wasn't very good evidence in the first place.

Solicitors and barristers cannot knowingly proceed in a case if they know categorically that their client is guilty. This is a common misconception. The first thing any sane lawyer does is tell their client, "don't tell me whether or not you did it". Potential professional embarrassment is the worst moral dilemma you can come across.

>>136999654
Distorting the truth and lying are separate. Lawyers cannot outright lie and doing so would get you reported to the regulators.

>>137003227
>Distorting the truth and lying are separate. Lawyers cannot outright lie and doing so would get you reported to the regulators.
That only makes sense. Lawyers should be saying what their clients would be saying if they knew a lot about the law, and the law says you can't lie in court, so why would someone who knows that, which is the role lawyers are supposed to be playing, lie in court.

>>137004514
Conceptually i'm not quite sure that's how I would put it, but sure. Thing is the problem comes where there is a conflict between your duty to the client and your duty owed to the court. It often poses an issue when your client WANTS you to lie for them.

File: 1496382043666.png (133KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1000x1000px

>>137004921
Because lying is only illegal if you do it illegally, like driving a car is legal except when it's driven illegally. The only objective reality and truth are the parts subjectively agreed to be. All you fucks deserve to hang really.