How can lawyers act for certain clients whom the public detests?
“One of the highest services the lawyer can render to society is to appear in court on behalf of clients whose causes are in disfavor with the general public,” says a 1958 report from the American Bar Association. That same report found that human beings are limited when it comes to good judgment because they judge too swiftly despite not knowing all the facts about the specific situation they are judging. The legal system attempts to address this limitation and base decisions on facts and evidence. Only when a judge has “had the benefit of intelligent and vigorous advocacy on both sides can (they) feel fully confident in (their) decision.”
In Ontario we have an adversarial system where typically two lawyers advance their client’s interest before a neutral decision-maker — typically a judge. The system is designed to try to determine truth and pass judgment accordingly. When a client is in disfavour with the public, that presents a risk of prejudice creeping into the judgment. Good lawyers are needed to combat those prejudices. The system works only when everyone — including lawyers — plays their part to help realize the outcome of impartial judgment.
Unfortunately, lawyers are becoming less willing to represent clients whom the public sees as unpopular, and that should concern us all. Nobody wants to find themselves in a situation where they are accused of an egregious crime, whether rightly or wrongly, and find that the profession created to assist in impartial judgment will not play that part because the public deplores the client. I’m not so naive to believe the justice system always reaches the lofty goals upon which it is based, but without lawyers playing their role, the chances of reaching those goals are diminished. The bottom line is that clients who find themselves in disfavour with the public need strong advocates.
This article was originally published by The Hamilton Spectator.
