Deda,

I think you've hit one of the big reasons the public has a dim view of lawyers, but I'm not sure it's a fair one. The English common law (upon which U.S. and Canadian law are based) starts with the premise of innocence until proven guilty and carries it further with the edict that EVERY man is entitled to the best defence possible.

That puts an onus on defence lawyers to do anything they can to DEFEND the assumed innocence. Almost any defence lawyer, however, will not argue for the acquittal of someone they KNOW to be guilty. That's why a cardinal rule for defence lawyers is to never ask that particular question. If they do and if the answer is yes, they are bound by all professional ethics (and their oaths as officers of the court) to enter a guilty plea and argue for mitigation of sentence — i.e., to seek what is best in the way of counselling, rehabilitation, etc. — for the client.

I've got no problem with that — it may allow the odd guilty party to go free, but it goes a long way (tho' not all the way) to keeping innocent people out of jail.

Where I (and a lot of my lawyer friends) have difficulty with the profession is among the ambulance chasers and their ilk. They are the ones who have made it an almost dying thing for our children to have field trips (no parents want to leave themselves open to the liability), playgrounds are being closed, swimming holes are off limits, people are afraid to have parties and bars can't operate. They're the lawyers who do everything they can to convince the public that anything that happens to anybody is somebody else's fault and SOMEBODY'S GOT TO PAY! They have undercut the quality of life and liberty to an unbelievable degree and usually the ones who pursue that kind of thing are the ones who end up with most of the settlement money. That, I think, is the thing the public should be up in arms about.

cheers,

david