Legal proffession
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 February 2010
This query is : Resolved
An Individual or a company deliberately involves in misappropriation of funds or any criminal act.It gains the trust initially from the public and all concerned with their superficial honest activities but finally comes out with it.s real face of cheating and many other offences. My question is
The very reputed lawyers also take up such cases because of their money power and other pulls.
How far it is correct?
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 08 February 2010
dear friend, every accused has right to fair trial, a lawyer is merely a mouthpiece of an accused.
a lawyer is supposed to submit as according to the facts of the case and certainly keeping in view the law.
a lawyer can not be put the position of a judge.
if just morality is to be the parameter of legal profession then there will be no lawyers.
ignorance of law is no excuse but a layman is not supposed to be aware of each and every technical aspect of law, a lawyer simply helps his client in getting the litigation to a logical end.
Guest
(Expert) 08 February 2010
every accused has a right to engage a lawyer for his defence. If any person who is accused of a crime dont have such position or we can say a poor litigant.. the court appoint a lawyer for him also. i.e. amicus curae. So in ur querry, a lawyer is doing his profession and he has to defend his client.... but it doesn't mean that he take any bad steps in the trial i.s. threaten witnesses, making undue influence to prosecution witnesses.
in every criminal trial there are two sides.... Prosecution - Defence. both agencies ve to do their work honestly for his client. thats why some one well said that... "PROSECUTOR NOT PERSECUTOR"
"LAWYER NOT LIER"
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 09 February 2010
In continuation...
In the name of helping , the accused has been provided a lot of time and he had managed to mobilise , convert all the ill-gotten wealth and presents himself still waiting for the justice and judjement.The victims had no recourse as to inability to continue the fight against the monster and looses every thing.This was made possible for the cheat because he had the financial support for engaging a reputed, strong lawyer and made the case prolonged and ultimately successed.The great sayings like "JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED" GO WASTE. The Great Mahatma also basically ,a Barrister holds up the values of morality and justice,heard, never represented / supported the illegal and immoral cases.I do admit that everybody should be given a chance to be heard through his attorney submit in court of law his version of the case . In these times, even the lawyer had the knowledge in his heart of hearts that his client had cheated but supports him ,only the reason is ,he had the capability to buy any thing. The live example in a specific case today is...
M/S City limouzines (India) ltd had cheated its investers through out India to the tune of 15000 crores of rupees.The investors who among are retired and widows and many other are on the road
looking for justice.That criminal was being helped by great reputed lawyers in mubai and chennai and Hyderabad. Such cases are many. My point is , when the advocates beleives that his client is really a culprit, he should not represent him.If he continues his proffessional help, it is to be understood that heis willfully supporting the crime and made a party for the offence.If such /similar law is made, this becomes one of the many steps to control the series and no of cheating cases.
The questioner
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 09 February 2010
Practically you are right but theoretically lawyers are right.
P. Venu
(Expert) 09 February 2010
Theory involved is simple and straight forward. Advocate is a professional. His task is well defined in advancing the valid and lawful cause of his client. The client pleads the true facts and his lawyer makes the related legal submissions.
The tragedy is that the litigants, more 0often than not, willfully makes false pleadings and the lawyer advances submissions that are not relevant and advances the incorrect legal concept. The problem is compounded in that the judges are reluctant in enforcing the relevant provisions governing the of offenses affecting the administration of justice.
