US Politics

To a certain extent I think its usually not a problem for a barrister. Its all about the fair and even application of the law at the end of the day. My assumption is that its unusual to have a personal problem with a brief.

Certainly my experience. It's relatively easy for me, as I don't do criminal or family law, but friends who do crime and family just accept that it's not their job to decide who's guilty and who's not, and that everyone has a right to representation. It's one of the things that annoys me with legal dramas such as Silk, where senior defence barristers spent hours agonising about whether their client is guilty or not. In my experience, that simply doesn't happen.

In my Dad's case, it was defending somebody alleged of a particularly brutal infanticide that was the end of the line for him. He knew he was doing what was right in the eyes of the law, but coming home to his young family posed some mental barriers that he wasn't prepared for.

Ouch. That would be rough. A friend of mine once acted in a family contact case where she successfully ensured the father continued to have contact. The child was dead within six months. Not a nice position to be in.

who would represent that person if given the choice, someone has to do it

i guess giving legal people no choice ensures fair trials for all, even the very worst

wow so you could end up having to represent people worse than trump, having committed horrible crimes and have to defend that person totally against your principles

Yep. I've certainly represented some pretty unpleasant individuals. Like the landlord who insisted on me seeking an immediate possession order against a disabled couple with three young children a week before Christmas.

The Q continuum is already discussing whether Myanmar's is the coup that Q was actually talking about.

criminal or family law

Funny you should say that. My Dad chose family after criminal. He liked a challenge. 😂

Really? That's interesting. So you're not allowed to consider 'reputational damage'

There should be no reputational damage. People have a right to legal representation. Making sure their case is properly argued is a necessity of the legal system. Within the legal profession this is well understood, also among the saner parts of society.

The legal professionals who have damaged their reputation in Trump's defence did so because of the way they behaved while they were doing it, not for the basic fact of acting on his behalf.

a point of law which was not properly arguable

Would it then even qualify as 'a point of law'?

I am, I would love to have seen him stand trial next to Eichmann. I would have loved, even more, to see what people like Hannah Arendt would have made of his trial and legacy. We could have potentially avoided so many of the current ramifications if we had had an opportunity to see him challenged and his arguments defeated. His suicide in many ways prevented all, in his side and ours, from getting a proper resolution to one of the darkest passages of human history. So yes, his suicide was sad in many ways.

Why next to Eichmann? Do you mean 'at Nürnberg'?

We could have potentially avoided so many of the current ramifications if we had had an opportunity to see him challenged and his arguments defeated

Time has shown us again and again that if you give a platform to people with dangerous beliefs even under the guise of rubbishing it, all it does is give them oxygen.

Yes, as Eichmann and other 'refused' accountability saying they were plainly following orders, maybe the 'boss' (had him been around) would have been called into question. There is quite a lot of interesting research that shows that did not actually follow direct orders, but simply imagined what the man himself would have liked (which led to quite an crazy escalation)....

Yes. Just a bad one.

Well that is the problem with allowing people to have opinions, isn't it? I much prefer that to the other available options. Anyhow my point was that no suicide, even Hitler's, is just simply a 'good' thing. But we are entering the realm of Plato's republic now and honestly I don't think we will troubleshoot the governance system in lfgss (as much as I wish we could)

even Hitler's

i think he sets a fine example.

This is somewhat a requirement of a fair judicial system. Everyone deserves to be defended by a professional, the personal challenges this presents are difficult, but without it we end up without ajustice system at all.

from one left wing nut-job to another... I can't stop myself from saying something and I'm really sorry.

There are undertones of "the guilty don't deserve legal representation" in this thread. I am sorry for sounding as condescending as I am about to, but it could be useful to realize where that thought process comes from. It is far more than just ignorance. I think it comes from a misunderstanding of the legal system whose blanks were filled with ideas born from a world view that "the bad are undeserving". To some it just seemed obvious that you could choose who you represent as a lawyer. Think about how ridiculous that would be if it were true, and then think about why you thought that it made sense.

[/rant]

sorry I don't mean to start an argument. I'm being presumptuous myself. lets move on.

I think the public’s general ignorance of the existence of the cab rank rule means that they assume that legal types are all unscrupulous money-grabbing moral vacuums who would defend the worst child-buggering monster on the planet as long as they got paid at the end, when in reality it’s nothing like that.

Having read a few of the examples above, I’m really not sure I could ever do it myself, mind.

yes. I agree I would have a very hard time being unbiased and objective about simply representing for the sake of law when someone is definitely guilty of something terrible.

I’m finding all of this legal chatter fascinating. What’s the best non-fiction or fiction book that gives a good insight into that world?

I’m finding all of this legal chatter fascinating

Me too, despite a massive thread derail!

US politics and legal chatter will not be a derail for a very very long time

I agree I would have a very hard time being unbiased and objective about simply representing for the sake of law when someone is definitely guilty of something terrible.

If they're definitely guilty then no-one would be defending them, because there would be no defence.

I’m finding all of this legal chatter fascinating. What’s the best non-fiction or fiction book that gives a good insight into that world?

In Your Defence by Sarah Langford is a good insight into life at the criminal bar. Not sure there's really any equivalent novel about life at the Chancery bar. Probably because it's too boring.

I was given a copy of the secret barristers book a while ago, haven't got round to reading it yet, do you know if it is any good\realistic by any chance?

Edit: Are YOU the secret barrister?!