Lawyers Who Take Toxic Clients
I have a friend who's married to one of these. He's a decent human being and a topnotch lawyer and not all his clients are toxic, but he's definitely known as the go-to guy when a perp is likely guilty of some particularly heinous crime. He gets them off sometimes, and sometimes not.
Of course he's always being asked WHY he takes on these scumsuckers?
We had that conversation with him and this is what I took away from it:
FIRST, and most important reason (to him): He truly believes in our system of law and justice and that everyone must be a) presumed innocent until proven guilty; and b) provided with competent legal representation when they are under criminal prosecution. According to Stan (not his real name, I live in a smallish town), the scuzzier perps and those accused of the greasier crimes, often have to rely on crappy, slapdash legal representation even if they can afford to pay. He thinks that's wrong.
SECOND, and this reason I think kind of embarrasses him, but is understandable to a point: Those are often the "fun" cases, for a born courtroom lion like him. The deck is stacked heavily against his client, there's a whole Perry Mason vibe going on that sometimes overrides the shadow of the crime in questions. They're a challenge he can't resist.
Even so, we asked... some of those people are really awful human beings, seriously so... how CAN he?
After a lot of high-minded flapdoodle about even assholes being entitled to equal treatment under the law, yada yada yada, he allowed as how he doesn't actually accept EVERY scum-sucking sleazebag who asks him for representation. He always examines what's known about the case, how good the evidence is, etc., and forms an opinion on what he can do for the potential client.
Then he lays out the possible outcomes for the potential client. This is "The Talk". In every case, of course, he'll work insanely hard to get a 'not guilty' verdict. But he also tells the potential client what the OTHER possible outcome could be, and what he, Stan, would be able to do for the client in that case. And he gives a few carefully-worded hints about which outcome he thinks is most likely to prevail.
"A smart potential client," he allows, "will read between the lines and hear what I'm telling him, which is that if I can't get that not guilty verdict - and I think there's a realistic chance that I can't - what I CAN do is negotiate for him, get the best possible deal from the DA, or the best possible sentencing option from the judge. That client will promise their cooperation and I'll take their case and do my best for them. If the prosecution is the least bit careless or slipshod, I might get that not guilty verdict, but if I don't, I can generally get them a better sentence than they might have gotten with a less experienced counsel."
"And sometimes," he told us, "when I give the potential client 'The Talk', and let them know that there's no guarantee I can get the not guilty verdict, they don't want anything to do with me. And I'm always happy to send them elsewhere."
What I wonder is: How many times has [Redacted] gotten a similar "Talk" from an attorney he's thinking of hiring, and what did he do about it? Decide to keep looking? Or lie to the attorney about his willingness to cooperate and get the best possible deal if things don't go they way he wants?
speculatively,
Bright
= new reply since forum marked as read
