no comments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Karan wants that no one defends a convict whom he thinks is a criminal. For fair judgment both parties have rights to keep there point and i don't think Mr. Jethmalani have done anything wrong its his duty to defend his client. Thats what he is paid for .....

Sure, I'd agree if he were some other lawyer who happened to pick the case randomly. But in his case, most of them were famous and controverdial cases. why is that ? Isn't it obvious that he works only for money, not for justice! I agree that sometimes a lawyer has to believe whatever his client relates him a story in order to win the case, it all depends on lawyer's  discretion & how it is perceived. In Mr. Jethmalani's case it is more evident that he plays with the loop holes that he could find in our Judiciary System than a fair argument (Please see the arguments he had made in the case of Jessica Lall,  there were numerous instances of argument shuffle, every day). Having such a vast experience in the fields of law, which is certainly undisputed, that too more than 50 years as a leading advocate, he would be honored more than a Judge. Defending such cases would not really suit his stature. At one point, he hypocritically said to Mr. Thappar '... don't insult Indian Judicial System by saying advocates play tricks ... ' . I am terribly confused :)             

Whoever reads this thread, please take it as a debate only. From the depths of my heart, I am not trying to offend anyone, instead learning from you all.

Abstract:     

'Let Hundred Guilty Be Acquitted But One Innocent Should Not Be Convicted'

First, let me thank you for the explanation and finding out the advocate's duty to the client as per 'Professional Conduct and Etiquette' which I couldn't find it on the web. 

... few more words from this link.

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/messages/2009/6/6309_and_8220_do_not_lie_to_the_courtand_8221_advice_frm_sc.asp

Dear Raman,

Awesome, Shree. we finally have churned out the discussion with the line that you mentioned below point (3). Therefore, I dare to say that there is no difference between the modus operandi of an accomplice and a nefarious lawyer. So, the final bearer of this Olympic torch is this lawyer who begs the Lords to extinguish the flames to continue the game. I am just kidding here ... Your points made me think in a new direction. Thank you so much for your time.

Dear Raman,

Thanks for the invitation to contribute!!! I wish you all the best.

There is no brilliance in such lawyers .......... who are there just to mint money ...... a part of the money is just spent on activities which have already been mentioned by Adv. Shree ....... just to get their client off the hook ....... It's high time that the Advocate fraternity realize their responsibilities towards the society and the nation and just not hide behind the garb of the immunity of the code of ethics ...... or professionalism ....... Mr. Raman has raised an issue which is thought provoking ...........