It’s part of the ethos of a good lawyer to accept guilty clients as well as clients that aren’t guilty. The job of a lawyer also isn’t to provide rational arguments but to provide arguments that serve the interest of their client.
I know well what is the ethos of lawyers. My point was another. Lawyers can accept or decline cases, their decision depends on two factors: defending someone because it’s right and being paid. I was trying to understand what would be a rational take on this matter, knowing that both ways are legit, to maximize profit and to choose only safe cases.
What do you mean by “knowing that both ways are legit”? Only one way is legit: when someone comes to you needing defence and willing to pay your fees, you defend them.
(I think the actual system is a little different: a lawyer isn’t expected to defend their client if they’re sure the client is guilty; in that case they would ask them to find another lawyer, or something. But that isn’t because those clients don’t deserve defending, it’s because they deserve defending better than someone who’s sure they’re guilty is likely to manage.)
Hmm not really, let’s disambiguate.
Here I am talking mainly about civil issues.
There are ex officio lawyers appointed by the court and freelance lawyers.
Do freelance lawyers have the deontological duty to defend people? Yes
Do freelance lawyers have the right to choose their cases? Again, yes.
How do you balance this? Lawyers have to point to valid reasons why they deny to defend.
So, both ways are legit: if someone comes to you, you can defend him or not.
In this sense there is a margin to maximize profit.
It’s true that lawters aren’t required to take every client who comes along, but I think generally the legal profession strongly encourages them to be willing to take unattractive cases. For instance, the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility has various things to say, of which I’ve excerpted the bits that seem to me most important (on both sides of the question):
A lawyer is under no obligation to act as adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become his client; but in furtherance of the objective of the bar to make legal services fully available, a lawyer should not lightly decline proffered employment. The fulfillment of this objective requires acceptance by a lawyer of his share of tendered employment which may be unattractive both to him and the bar generally.
[...]
When a lawyer is appointed by a court or requested by a bar association to undertake representation of a person unable to obtain counsel, whether for financial or other reasons, he should not seek to be excused from undertaking the representation except for compelling reasons. Compelling reasons do not include such factors as the repugnance of the subject matter of the proceeding, the identity or position of a person involved in the case, the belief of the lawyer that the defendant in a criminal proceeding is guilty, or the belief of the lawyer regarding the merits of the civil case.
So they don’t quite say that lawyers should never refuse to represent clients just because they think they’re guilty. But they do say that lawyers should be willing to take “unattractive” cases, and that if a court assigns a lawyer to represent someone who can’t afford to pay for his own lawyer then that lawyer shouldn’t refuse just because they think the client is guilty.
So my earlier statement goes too far, but I think it’s more right than wrong: in general lawyers aren’t supposed to refuse to defend you just because they think you’re probably guilty. Even though they are allowed to refuse to defend you.
It’s part of the ethos of a good lawyer to accept guilty clients as well as clients that aren’t guilty. The job of a lawyer also isn’t to provide rational arguments but to provide arguments that serve the interest of their client.
I know well what is the ethos of lawyers. My point was another. Lawyers can accept or decline cases, their decision depends on two factors: defending someone because it’s right and being paid. I was trying to understand what would be a rational take on this matter, knowing that both ways are legit, to maximize profit and to choose only safe cases.
What do you mean by “knowing that both ways are legit”? Only one way is legit: when someone comes to you needing defence and willing to pay your fees, you defend them.
(I think the actual system is a little different: a lawyer isn’t expected to defend their client if they’re sure the client is guilty; in that case they would ask them to find another lawyer, or something. But that isn’t because those clients don’t deserve defending, it’s because they deserve defending better than someone who’s sure they’re guilty is likely to manage.)
Hmm not really, let’s disambiguate. Here I am talking mainly about civil issues. There are ex officio lawyers appointed by the court and freelance lawyers. Do freelance lawyers have the deontological duty to defend people? Yes Do freelance lawyers have the right to choose their cases? Again, yes. How do you balance this? Lawyers have to point to valid reasons why they deny to defend. So, both ways are legit: if someone comes to you, you can defend him or not. In this sense there is a margin to maximize profit.
It’s true that lawters aren’t required to take every client who comes along, but I think generally the legal profession strongly encourages them to be willing to take unattractive cases. For instance, the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility has various things to say, of which I’ve excerpted the bits that seem to me most important (on both sides of the question):
So they don’t quite say that lawyers should never refuse to represent clients just because they think they’re guilty. But they do say that lawyers should be willing to take “unattractive” cases, and that if a court assigns a lawyer to represent someone who can’t afford to pay for his own lawyer then that lawyer shouldn’t refuse just because they think the client is guilty.
So my earlier statement goes too far, but I think it’s more right than wrong: in general lawyers aren’t supposed to refuse to defend you just because they think you’re probably guilty. Even though they are allowed to refuse to defend you.
Upvoted because I agree. That’s what I was saying, they have to point to valid reasons.
It’s not always rational to make a rational argument. Rationality in the same Eliezer defines it has to do with your goals.
Ok, thank you for your answers. I was searching for a new angle from which looking at my area of interest, but I’ve probably asked the wrong question.