What I Need to Know
Have you ever wondered how on earth an average person could defend a serial killer in court or why lawyers choose to represent people who have committed horrendous crimes? So did I, which is why my capstone project is about how lawyers decide whether or not to represent a client.
What I Know or Assume
When I started off the project I didn't know much about the thought process that lawyers use when deciding whether or not to represent clients. I was pretty sure that most lawyers based it off of whether or not the client was guilty or whether or not they thought they could win the case.
The Search
For the actual research process I read numerous articles from different publications to learn about the thought process that lawyers use when deciding whether or not to represent someone. I learned a lot from the articles I read. The majority of lawyers cited the constitution as their defense because it is every citizen's right to have counsel. I also conducted an interview with my mentor so that I could have some primary research to help form my conclusion. My mentor was very helpful and has represented a wide variety of people so he has a lot of experience. For the full interview see below. I also conducted a mini survey with several of my peers in which I asked them the open ended question of "What factors lawyers use to decide whether or not to represent a person?" The responses didn't vary much. Many of them said whether or not the client was guilty or whether or not the client could afford the attorney. I realized that there is a lot of misconception on the topic because many people think it is a clear cut decision when in reality there are many factors a lawyer considers. I also realized that these misconceptions were rooted in society's view of lawyers and their portrayal on many popular television shows. These shows portray lawyers as unethical and cold people when in reality lawyers abide by a strong code of ethics.
What I discovered
Through my research I learned that guilt is never a factor that lawyers consider when deciding whether or not to represent a client. I also realized that the factors they do consider are: area of expertise, current case load, whether or not the case seems appealing, current clientele and expectations. Lawyers believe that every citizen is innocent until proven guilty and that everyone has a right to counsel. One of my articles also pointed out the fact that criminal lawyers are also motivated by the fact that "none of us would want to be defined by the very worst thing we ever did." Criminals are people who've made mistakes, they still deserve a defense just like any other human being. Lawyers also have to decide whether or not the case falls under their area of expertise. For example you wouldn't want a criminal lawyer to argue your divorce case or a tax lawyer to defend you on a murder charge. In conclusion every lawyer has their own list of factors that they consider when deciding whether or not to represent a person, but guilt is never one of them.
Have you ever wondered how on earth an average person could defend a serial killer in court or why lawyers choose to represent people who have committed horrendous crimes? So did I, which is why my capstone project is about how lawyers decide whether or not to represent a client.
What I Know or Assume
When I started off the project I didn't know much about the thought process that lawyers use when deciding whether or not to represent clients. I was pretty sure that most lawyers based it off of whether or not the client was guilty or whether or not they thought they could win the case.
The Search
For the actual research process I read numerous articles from different publications to learn about the thought process that lawyers use when deciding whether or not to represent someone. I learned a lot from the articles I read. The majority of lawyers cited the constitution as their defense because it is every citizen's right to have counsel. I also conducted an interview with my mentor so that I could have some primary research to help form my conclusion. My mentor was very helpful and has represented a wide variety of people so he has a lot of experience. For the full interview see below. I also conducted a mini survey with several of my peers in which I asked them the open ended question of "What factors lawyers use to decide whether or not to represent a person?" The responses didn't vary much. Many of them said whether or not the client was guilty or whether or not the client could afford the attorney. I realized that there is a lot of misconception on the topic because many people think it is a clear cut decision when in reality there are many factors a lawyer considers. I also realized that these misconceptions were rooted in society's view of lawyers and their portrayal on many popular television shows. These shows portray lawyers as unethical and cold people when in reality lawyers abide by a strong code of ethics.
What I discovered
Through my research I learned that guilt is never a factor that lawyers consider when deciding whether or not to represent a client. I also realized that the factors they do consider are: area of expertise, current case load, whether or not the case seems appealing, current clientele and expectations. Lawyers believe that every citizen is innocent until proven guilty and that everyone has a right to counsel. One of my articles also pointed out the fact that criminal lawyers are also motivated by the fact that "none of us would want to be defined by the very worst thing we ever did." Criminals are people who've made mistakes, they still deserve a defense just like any other human being. Lawyers also have to decide whether or not the case falls under their area of expertise. For example you wouldn't want a criminal lawyer to argue your divorce case or a tax lawyer to defend you on a murder charge. In conclusion every lawyer has their own list of factors that they consider when deciding whether or not to represent a person, but guilt is never one of them.
1. Q: How did you decide that you wanted to be a lawyer? A: I was always interested in US government, specifically presidents and as I did more reading about them I realized that many of them had been lawyers before getting into politics.
R: This wasn’t the response that I was expecting because a lot of people that are interested in presidents tend to go into politics, but it was interesting to learn that a lot of past presidents went to law school.
2. Q: Which type of law that you practice is your favorite? A: My favorite is criminal law on both sides meaning as either a prosecutor or defense lawyer.
R: From this response criminal law sounds like a lot of fun because you get to build a case against someone and it’s kind of like putting a puzzle together.
3. Q: What is the most interesting case you’ve ever had? A: US v. Loclan, which was a case about a gang of vicious criminals that committed home invasions, robberies, and extortion.
R: This was a case that he worked on in his time as a federal prosecutor and it sounds like a very interesting case.
4. Q: How do you decide whether or not to represent a client? A: First we have to have the capacity to take on a client at that time. The case also has to be interesting to me. Certain cases just don’t appeal to me and I’m not interested on working on them. Third the case has to be in our wheelhouse meaning it has to be something we’re good at. There are certain types of law that I have no experience in.
R: The fact that some cases might not be interesting to argue never occurred to me as a standard.
5. Q: Does whether or not a client is guilty weigh into whether or not you represent them? A: No. Every client has a constitutional right to a complete defense. The book of To Kill a Mockingbird comes to mind because in that case the client was truly innocent but was given a guilty verdict.
R: This response surprised me because I naturally assumed that a client’s guilt would weigh into whether or not they chose to represent them.
6. Q: What’s the farthest place a case has ever taken you? A: Belize
R: I think it’s exciting that a career in law has the potential to take you all the way to Belize.
7. Q: What area of study do you recommend for undergraduates who want to go into law? A: Anything. As long as they get good grades and are interested in what they are learning about. I also recommend something that would prepare them for the writing component of law school.
R: This is a subject I’ve been curious about for quite some time and I was very satisfied with the answer because it means that I could major in anything I wanted to.
8. Q: Do different states have different types of rules and regulations when it comes to the law or is it pretty equal across the country? A: It’s pretty uniform across the country, but there are some places where it is harder to practice law because of the demographics in the area.
R: I didn’t know that in some areas it’s harder to practice law because of the majority demographic in the area.
9. Q: Have you ever practiced law in a foreign country? A: Yes I argued a case in Belize, which was different because they are under the British system.
R: This was an interesting fact because it didn’t occur to me that some countries come other legal systems.
10. Q: What is one untrue myth or stereotype that relates to being a lawyer A: Most TV shows portray lawyers as being unethical and capable of committing crimes when in reality lawyers are very ethical people.
R: I agree with this myth because a lot of the TV shows show lawyers as being greedy and unethical people.