2 ms·

For the most part, prosecutors are government employees or even elected officials. It would be difficult to defend accused people without running into a conflic

by Digory 8y ago

For the most part, prosecutors are government employees or even elected officials. It would be difficult to defend accused people without running into a conflict of interest with your employer. While defense lawyers are frequently appointed and sometimes claim from a government-funded pool, again, it would be nearly impossible to defend accused people in the same jurisdiction in which you prosecuted similar cases. For example, a DUI client's best defense might be to attack the county crime lab as unreliable. Once the lawyer does that, his words would be fed back to him if he tries to prosecute a person accused of DUI. Thus, you tend to get lawyers one one side or the other -- either defense/prosecution, or (for similar reasons) plaintiff/defense on the civil side.

jaycroft 8y ago
Perhaps if when in the public defender role the lawyer is successful in showing the crime lab to be unreliable, it is a good thing if that crime lab's work holds less weight in subsequent trials? Of course other bad incentives will probably pop up, but it seems like this is one way to promote truth over politics in our justice system.
gamblor956 8y ago
Very little of what you just said actually applies to the practice of litigation in the US. For starters, most defense lawyers aren't "appointed" from a government-funded pool; they're actually employees of the government: public defenders. (Pool defenders are the minority in the US, generally found in smaller jurisdictions without the budget for standalone public defender offices.) Public defenders frequently attack the crime labs and police departments, despite the fact that both departments are also part of their employer. On the civil side, outside of specialized areas like insurance litigation or torts, most litigation lawyers do not specialize as plaintiff or defense lawyers. They represent their clients, and this means that they will be the plaintiff's lawyer in some cases and the defense's lawyer in others. (In the case of tort litigation, the "side" depends on the client base. If the lawyer's clients are businesses, they'll almost always be on the defense side. However, if their clients are individuals, they could be on either side.)
- Digory 8y ago
  I didn't say defense lawyers are "appointed from a government-funded pool." I said many are "appointed," which is the term used in Gideon v. Wainright and Miranda. "Appointed" covers public defenders and assigned counsel. Both are (under)paid from government funds, but their attorney-client obligations run to the accused, not the government. As for the the rest, "the Defense bar"[0] and "Plaintiff's lawyers"[1] are pretty common terms. Sorry if your speciality is left out. The point is that a lawyer's responsibilities to clients will get hairy if they try to play both sides of common divides like prosecution/(criminal)defense and plaintiff/(corporate) defense. [0] https://www.dri.org/ https://www.dri.org/ [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=plaintiff%27s+lawyer+site%3Awsj.com https://www.google.com/search?q=plaintiff%27s+lawyer+site%3A...
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    I'm a lawyer...I've practice both as a public defender and in civil litigation. You're technically correct about everything you've cited but still completely wrong about your conclusion. Lawyers are professionals, and while you will get a few bad apples who play politics, the overwhelming majority of them will have no problem representing both sides--as long as it's in different cases. (Professional has a specific legal meaning in the US, meaning at a very high level that lawyers have ethical obligations to their clients.)

by Digory 8y ago

jaycroft 8y ago

Perhaps if when in the public defender role the lawyer is successful in showing the crime lab to be unreliable, it is a good thing if that crime lab's work holds less weight in subsequent trials? Of course other bad incentives will probably pop up, but it seems like this is one way to promote truth over politics in our justice system.

gamblor956 8y ago

Very little of what you just said actually applies to the practice of litigation in the US. For starters, most defense lawyers aren't "appointed" from a government-funded pool; they're actually employees of the government: public defenders. (Pool defenders are the minority in the US, generally found in smaller jurisdictions without the budget for standalone public defender offices.) Public defenders frequently attack the crime labs and police departments, despite the fact that both departments are also part of their employer. On the civil side, outside of specialized areas like insurance litigation or torts, most litigation lawyers do not specialize as plaintiff or defense lawyers. They represent their clients, and this means that they will be the plaintiff's lawyer in some cases and the defense's lawyer in others. (In the case of tort litigation, the "side" depends on the client base. If the lawyer's clients are businesses, they'll almost always be on the defense side. However, if their clients are individuals, they could be on either side.)

Digory 8y ago
I didn't say defense lawyers are "appointed from a government-funded pool." I said many are "appointed," which is the term used in Gideon v. Wainright and Miranda. "Appointed" covers public defenders and assigned counsel. Both are (under)paid from government funds, but their attorney-client obligations run to the accused, not the government. As for the the rest, "the Defense bar"[0] and "Plaintiff's lawyers"[1] are pretty common terms. Sorry if your speciality is left out. The point is that a lawyer's responsibilities to clients will get hairy if they try to play both sides of common divides like prosecution/(criminal)defense and plaintiff/(corporate) defense. [0] https://www.dri.org/ https://www.dri.org/ [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=plaintiff%27s+lawyer+site%3Awsj.com https://www.google.com/search?q=plaintiff%27s+lawyer+site%3A...
- gamblor956 8y ago
  I'm a lawyer...I've practice both as a public defender and in civil litigation. You're technically correct about everything you've cited but still completely wrong about your conclusion. Lawyers are professionals, and while you will get a few bad apples who play politics, the overwhelming majority of them will have no problem representing both sides--as long as it's in different cases. (Professional has a specific legal meaning in the US, meaning at a very high level that lawyers have ethical obligations to their clients.)