popo weenie Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Serious answer with way too much informing the view?Lawyer should have acted and well. Largely ignorant not to besides personal distaste which is irrelevant. Basic plotline here of And Justice For All effectively - would have made the best lawyer. Do not censor anything. There are too many invisible things in the world including the entire Intelligence community. Hate is not as compelling as Love but easier for profoundly stupid people to understand.totally agree with you only to keep you relaxedlife is life and people are people which makes the differance in the way life should really be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popo weenie Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 tough call. If a lawyer's role is to defend a client based on law as it is written, and this person's only offence is a subjectively ethical one, not objectively legal, then certainly this lawyer *could* represent the man without suffering a contradiction upon themselves.so what happens if they dissapear and you get to go to court on your own and i mean your own knowing frig all about the law and a very short notice at thatthink i,ll get greenspan i would if i had the bucks and tip him also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edger Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 I support "this lawyers" decision either way. If it were me, I would not support this person. But then again, I'd have a hard time defending a lot of people's actions/choices if I didn't agree with them on personal ethical grounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted February 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 In my view, there is no clear answer to this.IF THIS WERE ME, and not just a HYPOTHETICAL situation, I would decline the work, but I would have some philosophical problems with doing so. It would be a struggle between my views as a civil-libertarian and my personal views of particular issues.(I can tell you, though, that during law school I would have said exactly what Zero did.)There is no correct answer, here.BTW: popo weenie, as a point of interest, if you ever find yourself looking for a lawyer to commence a lawsuit, you would likely do better to hire someone who actually practices civil litigation; rather than a criminal defence lawyer like Greenspan (despite what an amazing litigator he is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak By Night Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 This is an historic thread - Popo Weenie has learned how to quote other posts!Yay Popo Weenie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popo weenie Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 In my view, there is no clear answer to this.IF THIS WERE ME, and not just a HYPOTHETICAL situation, I would decline the work, but I would have some philosophical problems with doing so. It would be a struggle between my views as a civil-libertarian and my personal views of particular issues.i know i had 3 litigation lawyers they all said oh you get new boards frig a 20 ton grader hit my i didn,t move my house oh well a house is not a home i guess only a material thing but i found out agter 5 years they lie all of them take up foe one another i will not and never have i liedoh maybe a white story not to hurt or be sneaky about the truthif i done wrong and stand before a judge i,d say i did what ever i did and no lies as that is the problem i don,t know how to lie he he where is olaha friggen stress i forget his name he maybe can help he seems to know a lot about life and honest maybe he is a lawyer is it wrong to speak you mind here as thats me speak my mind but not to be ignorant(I can tell you, though, that during law school I would have said exactly what Zero did.)There is no correct answer, here.BTW: popo weenie, as a point of interest, if you ever find yourself looking for a lawyer to commence a lawsuit, you would likely do better to hire someone who actually practices civil litigation; rather than a criminal defence lawyer like Greenspan (despite what an amazing litigator he is).all screwed up again here as i clicked quote post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Boy 2.0 Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 This is an historic thread - Popo Weenie has learned how to quote other posts!Yay Popo Weenie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popo weenie Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 There is no correct answer, here.and you will not find out one in the court room either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djmelbatoast Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 This is an historic thread - Popo Weenie has learned how to quote other posts!Yay Popo Weenie!Actually that happened here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 does this mean that your not going to help me get these guys to stop messing with my KKK all the way site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted February 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 There is no correct answer, here.and you will not find out one in the court room eitherYou are correct, popo weenie. The question in this thread is not a legal question, suited to court disposition. It is a philosophical question. There is no "legal issue" here, at all; at best it is a moral issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted February 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 For you, Jared? Anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allison Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 My sense of this is that Stone Mtn asked HYPOTHETICALLY whether the lawyer should defend a client ,whom it was AGREED had a case under basic tort law,even though this clients activities were not palatable to the lawyer.The activities and the tort being litigated are completley separate.If there is a transgression against someones legal rights, that person has the right to pursue any legal course of action available to them.To moralize who that person is, cast judgement on that persons activities and use that as a basis to gauge whether they merit legal recompense in a FREE, democratic society is competley antagonistic to basic principles of natural justice.My neighbor doesnt lose their rights to sue me if I trespass on their property just because they are stupid,racist pricks.If I think that, I in turn am an ignorant twit.Ethically, I would stand beside someones civil liberties before I would moralize my own distaste into denying those same liberties.Meaning I would defend the person for the trespass to property.The mud in this hypothetical question is really the predicate to the whole question- the hate crime aspect.NOT because of my distaste for it BUT because under law, I don't know that that person has recourse- you cant sue someone for something arising from illegal activity.So-if the person had legal recourse-the lawyer should defend them for property rights.Would I defend the same person for something related to hate crimes?No.And on a final note, deciding not to defend someone because of hate crimes as your only method of rising up against the complete fucking ignorant hatred of racism is a very lame, token ethical activism.I'm not awarding any girl guide badges for courage for that one.popo weenie makes reality fracture every once and awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 In my view, there is no clear answer to this.IF THIS WERE ME, and not just a HYPOTHETICAL situation, I would decline the work, but I would have some philosophical problems with doing so. It would be a struggle between my views as a civil-libertarian and my personal views of particular issues.(I can tell you, though, that during law school I would have said exactly what Zero did.)There is no correct answer, here.Zero brought up some good points, but i'd agree with what you have to say here. There's always going to be a certain level of humanity within the law. My dad is a criminal defense attorney and struggles with somewhat related issues everyday.. do you drop the psycho murderer, or do you pay heed to 'everyone is innocent until proven guilty' and thus deserves a fair trial? He's always fallen on the side of the latter and takes the slack for it. i can clearly remember when i was younger listening in on a phone call from some women's organization asking him 'how he sleeps at night, defending who he does?'. Like most lawyers, I believe everyone deserves representation, but in this specific case, if i were this lawyer, i would decline, but rest assured that someone else will probably pick up the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarcO Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 I certainly don't think a lawyer should HAVE to take on a case he or she objects to morally but I would assume that a full disclosure of that reasoning would be made known to the rejected client. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted February 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 I said nothing about "defending" a client. The potential client was looking to commence a lawsuit.Incidentally (again IF this had been me) I WOULD LIKELY have suggested and referred this to a more appropriate lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allison Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 Sorry! Should have said "represent". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allison Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 More appropriate on what grounds?(Just curious).Meaning sphere of expertise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 I certainly don't think a lawyer should HAVE to take on a case he or she objects to morally but I would assume that a full disclosure of that reasoning would be made known to the rejected client.i'm nowhere up to speed on lawyerly codes or anything.. but don't lawyers take some kind of oath to objectivity or something along those lines? isn't that a pretty big thing in law school?i agree though marco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted February 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 DirtyBird: In this case, I would have referred this person to a particular lawyer who is well known for acting for similar clients. The particular lawyer I am thinking of would have no personal biases that could possibly interfere with upholding his duty to act as prudently for this client as he is sworn to, and also has the appropriate legal expertise to handle this matter.Birdy: We take oaths that essentially say we will represent our clients to the best of our ability. That includes making arguments on that client's behalf and asking questions that we may find distasteful. That said, we are still entitled to take on any client we wish or refuse any client we wish. The only real restrictions on that are in the unusual case that you are in a very remote location and the potential client has no access to another lawyer, or in the case that the court orders you to represent a client. Once we take on a client, however, things get a little trickier. We don't have to represent that client forever, but we also cannot abandon that client at a moment that would prejudice the client's case. There are further rules on that, too, but that about sums it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popo weenie Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 This is an historic thread - Popo Weenie has learned how to quote other posts!Yay Popo Weenie!i dohow?i don,t have a clue just click on a button so says the lad and type Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggrtrhhrtgg Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 That's a tough question. Personally, I don't know what I would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now