a legal question...well sort of?
Discussion
dear all, i suspect this may get moved but its not legal advice i am after, but info on where a solicitor would stand in a situation.
ok, you are a solicitor, and you agree to represent someone and it goes to court.
the guy is guilty, and the evidence is overwhelming against him, and yet against your advice he pleads 'not guilty'
do you (the solicitor) have to stay and represent the guy, knowing you will lose?
i am wondering as i know of someone (not a friend) in this position and I was not sure if he could walk away, i think they are stuck with the case are they not?
cheers
ok, you are a solicitor, and you agree to represent someone and it goes to court.
the guy is guilty, and the evidence is overwhelming against him, and yet against your advice he pleads 'not guilty'
do you (the solicitor) have to stay and represent the guy, knowing you will lose?
i am wondering as i know of someone (not a friend) in this position and I was not sure if he could walk away, i think they are stuck with the case are they not?
cheers
Right.
If you KNOW someone is guilty - in other words they say (as a rapist did to me once just before his trial) "guess what, I did it and I am glad" then you have to step down from the case, unless it is just to enter a guilty plea and plead mitigation.
Otherwise, you are simply there to take the defence that he gives you, and present it to the court as best you can.
There are phrases that can be used to indicate your disdain for that defence, such as
"I am instructed that my client fell over whilst hoovering naked and that is why he was found with his dick inside the tube."
etc.
If you KNOW someone is guilty - in other words they say (as a rapist did to me once just before his trial) "guess what, I did it and I am glad" then you have to step down from the case, unless it is just to enter a guilty plea and plead mitigation.
Otherwise, you are simply there to take the defence that he gives you, and present it to the court as best you can.
There are phrases that can be used to indicate your disdain for that defence, such as
"I am instructed that my client fell over whilst hoovering naked and that is why he was found with his dick inside the tube."
etc.
Edited to add that him telling me cost me twenty grand, the abolsute cocktard
Edited by Vesuvius 996 on Thursday 25th September 14:25
Depends on the legal system.
I was working on a case in Scotland a while back and uncovered something that the prosecution had missed. Advocate and solicitor gave the client some advice and, since he wouldn't take the advice (to plead guilty), had to withdraw from the case since they believed they couldn't present his defence any longer. He was given 2 months to get new representation & counsel (which he did) and then pled guilty anyway
I was working on a case in Scotland a while back and uncovered something that the prosecution had missed. Advocate and solicitor gave the client some advice and, since he wouldn't take the advice (to plead guilty), had to withdraw from the case since they believed they couldn't present his defence any longer. He was given 2 months to get new representation & counsel (which he did) and then pled guilty anyway
A Solicitor is not under a duty to continue to act even if they have received instructions. They can withdraw their representation at any time.
If the Client has advised the solicitor that they are guilty the solicitor has to insist the client pleads Guilty or cease to act as they would be guilty themselves of PCJ and misleading the court (same thing).
IIRC it is a little different if you are a Barrister though as i don't think that they are permitted to decline instructions, but i am shaky on this.
If the Client has advised the solicitor that they are guilty the solicitor has to insist the client pleads Guilty or cease to act as they would be guilty themselves of PCJ and misleading the court (same thing).
IIRC it is a little different if you are a Barrister though as i don't think that they are permitted to decline instructions, but i am shaky on this.
Vesuvius 996 said:
Right.
If you KNOW someone is guilty - in other words they say (as a rapist did to me once just before his trial) "guess what, I did it and I am glad" then you have to step down from the case, unless it is just to enter a guilty plea and plead mitigation.
Otherwise, you are simply there to take the defence that he gives you, and present it to the court as best you can.
There are phrases that can be used to indicate your disdain for that defence, such as
"I am instructed that my client fell over whilst hoovering naked and that is why he was found with his dick inside the tube."
etc.
Ah, the good old "We write on the instructions of our clients...."If you KNOW someone is guilty - in other words they say (as a rapist did to me once just before his trial) "guess what, I did it and I am glad" then you have to step down from the case, unless it is just to enter a guilty plea and plead mitigation.
Otherwise, you are simply there to take the defence that he gives you, and present it to the court as best you can.
There are phrases that can be used to indicate your disdain for that defence, such as
"I am instructed that my client fell over whilst hoovering naked and that is why he was found with his dick inside the tube."
etc.
Edited by Vesuvius 996 on Thursday 25th September 14:22
cool, thanks gents, i am seeing someone tonight who will get me up to speed on the case, and see if any of this has happened.
we are looking at this from the prosecution side and my mate said he felt sorry for the defence solicitor as he was on a hiding to nothing.
i know this was an odd ask, but it was bugging me as most of what i know about the legal system is off the telly, and hence (boston legal being the favourite) a load of old tripe that would not wash in a uk court anyway.
thanks
we are looking at this from the prosecution side and my mate said he felt sorry for the defence solicitor as he was on a hiding to nothing.
i know this was an odd ask, but it was bugging me as most of what i know about the legal system is off the telly, and hence (boston legal being the favourite) a load of old tripe that would not wash in a uk court anyway.
thanks
Here's one for you....
Large company represents a client up on a murder charge. Scumbag client accused of shooting some other scumbag.
Company is interviewing the witnesses, one of which is scumbag's mate. "He didn't do it!" is the line trotted out. "That's fine, but you need to give us more. WHY didn't he do it? Was he with you somewhere?"
"Nah mate, he didn't do it. It was me. I shot him!".
Ah!. Errrr....
Large company represents a client up on a murder charge. Scumbag client accused of shooting some other scumbag.
Company is interviewing the witnesses, one of which is scumbag's mate. "He didn't do it!" is the line trotted out. "That's fine, but you need to give us more. WHY didn't he do it? Was he with you somewhere?"
"Nah mate, he didn't do it. It was me. I shot him!".
Ah!. Errrr....
I've been involved in a recent trial (Not in the dock, I hasten to add) and could actually see the defence barrister's shoulders drop when his client came up with yet another untrue embellishment to his already ludicrous defence in order to cast mud at the victim. It didn't work.
Frequently, saying "No comment" is a superb piece of advice. Prior to court.
Frequently, saying "No comment" is a superb piece of advice. Prior to court.
Look at it this way. If the defence, can get into the minds of the prosecution and work out why the guy must be guilty, they can then start to build a creditible defence around each and every point/fact that suggests his guilt.
Unless he says : YES I am GUILTY, get me off on a technicality. In which case he can't.
Unless he says : YES I am GUILTY, get me off on a technicality. In which case he can't.
Mr POD said:
Look at it this way. If the defence, can get into the minds of the prosecution and work out why the guy must be guilty, they can then start to build a creditible defence around each and every point/fact that suggests his guilt.
Unless he says : YES I am GUILTY, get me off on a technicality. In which case he can't.
i can understand that completely, but in this case there can be no argument that he did it. he was still in situ when plod arrived etc. Unless he says : YES I am GUILTY, get me off on a technicality. In which case he can't.
i don't want to say more in case somehow it gets back to someone through someone etc, and he gets to use it as a technicality, although how i don't know as i only know what has been said in front of people in the public gallery. just in case.
rude-boy said:
Vesuvius 996 said:
Right.
If you KNOW someone is guilty - in other words they say (as a rapist did to me once just before his trial) "guess what, I did it and I am glad" then you have to step down from the case, unless it is just to enter a guilty plea and plead mitigation.
Otherwise, you are simply there to take the defence that he gives you, and present it to the court as best you can.
There are phrases that can be used to indicate your disdain for that defence, such as
"I am instructed that my client fell over whilst hoovering naked and that is why he was found with his dick inside the tube."
etc.
Ah, the good old "We write on the instructions of our clients...."If you KNOW someone is guilty - in other words they say (as a rapist did to me once just before his trial) "guess what, I did it and I am glad" then you have to step down from the case, unless it is just to enter a guilty plea and plead mitigation.
Otherwise, you are simply there to take the defence that he gives you, and present it to the court as best you can.
There are phrases that can be used to indicate your disdain for that defence, such as
"I am instructed that my client fell over whilst hoovering naked and that is why he was found with his dick inside the tube."
etc.
Edited by Vesuvius 996 on Thursday 25th September 14:22
jesta1865 said:
most of what i know about the legal system is off the telly, and hence (boston legal being the favourite) a load of old tripe that would not wash in a uk court anyway.
Indeed. Witness:'Doctor, can you give the court your impression of Mr. Striker?'
'I'm sorry. I don't do impressions. My training is in psychiatry'.
(Leslie Neilsen, Airplane 2)
rude-boy said:
A Solicitor is not under a duty to continue to act even if they have received instructions. They can withdraw their representation at any time.
I think there has been recent case law on this, which essentially said that the solicitors retainer is an entire contract, and that if you withdraw for certain reasons apart from by mutual consent/professional embarrassment or similar you can't sue on your bill...not my area of law, but i seem to remember hearing tales where the accused would confess their guilt to the solicitor and then plead not guilty. the solicitor was able to carry on acting (he doesn't have to prove that the accused didn't do it - the basis being that if the prosecution cannot prove their case then the solicitor does not have to say anything untrue or commit perjury to get his client off). but as soon as the accused starts lying (i.e. it wasn't me guv), then the solicitor approaches the bench and asks to withdraw from the proceedings for professional conduct reasons.
everyone reads between the lines and the toe-rag is convicted.
minutes later he is released as the prisons are to full and he re-offends within hours.
everyone reads between the lines and the toe-rag is convicted.
minutes later he is released as the prisons are to full and he re-offends within hours.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff