That is the question.
There is this general believe that all lawyers are liars but I know some that are very good Christians, does it mean when the enter the court they forget about being one.
I know the might not be necessarily saying the truth i.e hiding some part of the story in order to favour their side. But this is completely different from telling white lies such  as framing up stories, giving wrong info etc.
I know of course some of them lie but is it a general thing.

Interesting views are welcome from people from legal practitioners and their children

Lawyers aka liars !!!

alot

very well

tHaTs WhY tHeY aRe TeRmEd "ShYsTeRs"

Lawyers are grade 1 liars whether they are Christians or not. If what is in the bible is anything to go by then "All liars lawyers shall have their path in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."

All they believe is 'the ends justifies the means', anyhow they argue to win a case o, They believe its not a sin but professionalism.

I think lying is just part of there profession and it depends how well and convincing you can be to go far in that profession ,

afam4eva:

Lawyers are grade 1 liars whether they are Christians or not. If what is in the bible is anything to go by then "All liars lawyers shall have their path in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."

judge not, so that ye shall not be judged.

meanwhile, waka

They are ARROGANT liars !

Yes. From personal experiences

Princek12:

judge not, so that ye shall not be judged.

meanwhile, waka

Dude, how i'm i judging? I'm simply stating what i saw in the bible. Since everyone has concluded that lawyer are liars by default so what's new here. Why e dey pain you? Your be lawyer. Abeg SCRAM!!!

A lawyer is in a profession where you tell the truth as you want it to be seen.

if they don't lie they can't get paid. the pay of a lawyer is determined by the quality of his lies.

Another question is are some that don't lie, even if it's just 1

The short answer is no because lying can get you disbarred as you have a duty of candor to the court. We have Rules of Professional Responsibilities that we must follow, at least in the US.

However, just because you can’t lie does not mean that you should make the case for the other side. It is totally up to the opposing attorney to make his case. You only disclose what you’re under obligation to disclose. If you ask me a vague question be prepared for a vague response. Playing with words is not considered lying and it is up to the opposing attorney to recognize that his question wasn't direct enough.

Further, there are rules preventing certain disclosures of client communication.


Here’s one lawyer’s redacted take:

Client confidentiality v. duty of candor to the court
Recently I was arguing a magistrate court appeal, in the circuit court, when the judge asked me what my communications had been to my client concerning the client's trial date. I refused to answer the question, explaining to the court that I was placed in a difficult position, as I could not reveal the subject of client communications. The judge's response was that I have a duty of candor to the court that required my response - I have to disagree, as I will explain below.

Back to the question regarding communications with the client regarding court dates, there are many considerations, including the[b] rules governing client confidentiality[/b], the Sixth Amendment right to counsel [/b]which includes the duty of confidentiality (without which the right to counsel would be meaningless), [b]the client's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination which necessarily includes the client's right against self-incrimination through the lawyer, and the broader policy considerations that require public trust in the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege.

Any rule which required an attorney to reveal such communications to the court would result in persons accused of crimes, and specifically this client, believing that they cannot trust their lawyer, and it would be that much worse because it would be a distrust caused by the judicial branch of the government. The Rules of confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege are both based on the same policy considerations: "Attorneys can best serve their clients and represent client interests only with full and frank disclosure between the client and attorney; and freedom from fear of disclosure by the attorney fosters full disclosure by the client."

Rule 1.6 of the S.C. Rules of Professional Conduct governs confidentiality, and states:
(b) A lawyer may [/b]reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer [b]reasonably [/b]believes necessary:
(1) to [b]prevent [/b]the client from [b]committing a criminal act;
(2) to prevent [/b]reasonably [b]certain [/b]death or [b]substantial bodily harm;
(3) to prevent [/b]the client from committing a [b]crime or fraud that is reasonably [/b]certain to result in [b]substantial [/b]injury to the financial interests or property of another [b]and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer’s services;
(4) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client’s commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer’s services;
(5) to secure legal advice about the lawyer's compliance with these Rules;

(6) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's representation of the client; or
(7) to comply with other law or a court order.


(1) through (4) deal with what is called the "crime/fraud exception" to the rules of confidentiality; if a client intends to engage in a future [/b]crime, the lawyer [b]may [/b]reveal confidences to prevent the crime (notice this is not mandatory, it is permissive). [b]This never applies to past conduct, which would go to the very nature of a criminal defense lawyer's advice to clients.

(5) applies when an attorney is seeking advice regarding the rules from another attorney, in which case the privilege is simply extended to the second attorney. (6) involves situations where a lawyer is sued by his client, and it allows an attorney to discuss confidences to the extent necessary to defend his conduct in a PCR case.

(7) would apply, except for the Constitutional considerations. I believe that (7) would insulate an attorney from discipline as a result of answering these questions when ordered by the court, but would not require the attorney to disclose his client's confidences, as the Rule uses the language "may" as opposed to "must."

http://www.southcarolinacriminaldefenseblog.com/2008/12/client_confidentiality_v_duty_1.html

Actually on the contrary; not all lawyers are liars. That you trying to convince a judge/jury don't mean you have to tell lies. In fact, lawyers who tell the truth rather than lie often prevail better than their opponent who tries to use lies to cover the truth. In addition, it all depends on what area of law the lawyer is practicing. Constitutional law professions can't lie unlike criminal prosecutors.

manny4life:

Actually on the contrary; not all lawyers are liars. That you trying to convince a judge/jury don't mean you have to tell lies. In fact, lawyers who tell the truth rather than lie often prevail better than their opponent who tries to use lies to cover the truth. In addition, it all depends on what area of law the lawyer is practicing. Constitutional law professions can't lie unlike criminal prosecutors.

Pls let's stop decieving ourselves. If you're hired by someone who's accused of killing someone and almost every evidence points to this fact. Why is it that the hired lawyers still goes ahead to defend their killer client.

afam4eva:

Pls let's stop decieving ourshelves. If you're hired by someone who's accused of killing someone and almost every evidence points to this fact. Why is it that the hired lawyers still goes ahead to defend their killer client.

Yeah because under constitutional law or the constitution, the accused enjoys a right to the sixth amendment; right by jury trial and legal counsel in the case the case the accused has witnesses in his/ her defense. The sixth amendment is supporting the fifth amendment.

@Wallie
Thank you very much for this exposure

afam4eva:

Pls let's stop decieving ourselves. If you're hired by someone who's accused of killing someone and almost every evidence points to this fact. Why is it that the hired lawyers still goes ahead to defend their killer client.

I think they should be able to defend without lies, it is their job

This thread actually made it to the front page earlier than expected

folahann:

I think they should be able to defend without lies, it is their job

This thread actually made it to the front page earlier than expected

Exactly, I think they shoud be able to perform their duties without lying to the court. Like Wallie said, lying can get you disbarred. One will imagine what kind of lies that was told for him/her to be disbarred.

afam4eva:

Pls let's stop decieving ourselves. If you're hired by someone who's accused of killing someone and almost every evidence points to this fact. Why is it that the hired lawyers still goes ahead to defend their killer client.

because despite what you think, that accused person is human too and has rights.

the lawyer is duty bound to represent him too.

i guess laymen always have difficulty with criminal legal practice, but then even if anecdotal evidence point to his culpability, then it should'nt be so hard for the prosecutor to secure a conviction.

u often quickly forget that everything is not always as it seems, do you realise there have been countless people who were erstwhile thought to be guilty by all and sundry only to find later after the evidence has been put under the spotlight that they are innocent?

a recent example of course would be the french IMF chap that was recently accused of raping a maid. see how it unravelled when the maid's so called evidence was examined?   if we were to go by the sensational newspaper accounts and ready minds to convict the man, he would already be serving time for an offence he never committed.


Note that the brief of a defence lawyer is not to aver that the accused never did a thing, it is to challenge the accuser to show beyond all doubt that of a truth, it is the accused that committed the crime.


note also that what constitutes a crime is arbitrarily chosen by some people and enacted, dont u think that before a man should be garrotted by another man on those rules, he ought to be afforded the chance to exculpate himself?


im sure u have seen quite a few detective movies, so u have refernce for some of the things i speak.



PARAMOUNT OF ALL IS: THE LEGAL/NATURAL LAW MAXIM THAT STATES THAT IT IS BETTER FOR 99 CRIMINALS TO GO UNPUNISHED, THAN 1 INNOCENT TO SUFFER FOR THAT WHICH HE KNEW NOT.

go to kirikiri and see masses of people who are there simply because of the same knee jerk response you are advocating to slay one simply because it 'appear' that they were guilty, courtesy of illiterate and uncouth police men who pick people off the street and accuse of of being armed robbers.


as for lying, it is entirely an individual thing. there is nothing attached to the practice of the law that promotes lying. matter of persuasion. GO FIGURE

afam4eva:

Pls let's stop decieving ourselves. If you're hired by someone who's accused of killing someone and almost every evidence points to this fact. Why is it that the hired lawyers still goes ahead to defend their killer client.

So you walk in on someone standing over a dead body holding a bloody knife. Is the person guilty of murder?

It is the prosecutor’s job to prove that the person is guilty of murder. If he his guilty, was it premeditated (1st degree murder), accidental, or in self defense? Is there another plausible reason the guy is holding the knife? Could he have walked into a room seeing the deceased stabbed and he tried to help by removing the knife?

Wallie:

So you walk in on someone standing over a dead body holding a bloody knife. Is the person guilty of murder?

It is the prosecutor’s job to prove that the person is guilty of murder. If he his guilty, was it premeditated (1st degree murder), accidental, or in self defense? Is there another plausible reason the guy is holding the knife? Could he have walked into a room seeing the deceased stabbed and he tried to help by removing the knife?

By Nigerian mentality, YES, the person is guilty of murder. Here is how it will play out; the police are lazy to do their investigation, accused is tortured badly that he confessed on something he did not do. Meanwhile, defense attorney rather than doing his job wants easy way out; negotiate with prosecutor. Prosecutor refuses to terms, takes the confession hook, line , sinker before judge and jury. Defense attorney sits ok with confession, or if he disputes the confession, biased judge will enter it.

Emotional jury finds accused "guilty on the count of first degree murder" as well as other charges. Prosecutor, seeing he has won first fight, ask judge for the death penalty . Judge refuses to grant such, prosecutor ask the judge for stiffer penalty. Judge will give him 40 years to life meanwhile prosecutor goes home knowing fully well, perhaps, that the person is an innocent man. In addition, defense attorney is useless or clueless because he did not do his job. My point is whatever the case is, for lawyers to prevail at what they do, LYING IS NOT AN OPTION.

Lawyer dont lie rather they follow the rules of court and rules of evidence that guides them on what to say and what to do. Thats why you hear this slang 'The burden of Proof is on the other party'. If the other party cannot prove his case beyond reasonable grounds within the confines of the evidence act or rules of law in force at that moment then its not the duty of the other lawyer to assist to help prove it. In fact it is even a punishable offence for a lawyer to incriminate his client willfully.

Not disclosing a fact that has not been requested is not lying

Not speaking up or maintaining silence is not lying

Fabricating a new story that cannot be dispelled or disproved by the other party is not lying

Presenting false evidence that was not objected to and was later admitted to be admissible is not lying

If a lawyer lies and the other lawyer objects to the statement or fact and the judge does not overule the 'so called lie' then it isnt lying

Bottom line present a better evidence when the time arrives for you to win your case

P.S: If a lawyer has been found out to have coached his client or lied to gain an unfair advantage he could be charged for perjury or disbarred  

Cheers

manny4life:


By Nigerian mentality, YES, the person is guilty of murder. Here is how it will play out; the police are lazy to do their investigation, accused is tortured badly that he confessed on something he did not do. Meanwhile, defense attorney rather than doing his job wants easy way out; negotiate with prosecutor. Prosecutor refuses to terms, takes the confession hook, line , sinker before judge and jury. Defense attorney sits ok with confession, or if he disputes the confession, biased judge will enter it.

But this is totally unacceptable, just because that is the usual practice in nigeria doesn't make it a norm

of cos they do. how do u want them to survive if they dont lie

lawyer:


1 Not disclosing a fact that has not been requested is not lying

2 Not speaking up or maintaining silence is not lying

3 Fabricating a new story that cannot be dispelled or disproved by the other party is not lying

4 Presenting false evidence that was not objected to and was later admitted to be admissible is not lying

5 If a lawyer lies and the other lawyer objects to the statement or fact and the judge does not overule the 'so called lie' then it isnt lying

Bottom line present a better evidence when the time arrives for you to win your case

P.S: If a lawyer has been found out to have coached his client or lied to gain an unfair advantage he could be charged for perjury or disbarred  

Cheers

# 1 and 2, agreed they are not lies.
from 3 to 5 are lies in real life, maybe not lie in law though

folahann:

# 1 and 2, agreed they are not lies.
from 3 to 5 are lies in real life, maybe not lie in law though

With 3, he shouldn't have said "fabricating" as it has a negative connotation. A "plausible" story would better convey what he meant.

Number 5 is an outright lie as he made the conclusion himself. Outright lying will get you in trouble but not being forthcoming is ok.

It depends which side the lawyer is defending and on average lawyers actually lie to protect their clients non will say the truth because is a christian to let the client down. They will do anything in there means to save their clients even if it means lying.