Are you defending somebody because he is innocense? or defending because he is your client. Becasue I dont think Professional Oath says you should defend person because he is your client and use whatever means possible to prove a criminal as innocense.

Now who will say person is innocense? We can argue its on court to decide? well we already have seen that prviously on many occassion court has faile terribally in this. What about Santosh sing (killer of Priyadershani?) he got aquitted. was he innocense? No due to media pressure on retrial it was proven that he was not? So even judeciarry have to accept that they were wrong many many time.

Anyway back to Ram Jeth Manali? Well are he trying to prove Manu innocense because he is? No he is using his skills and all the loophole to prove him innocense by defaming Jessica, by putting kahani main twist and by using his high profile connection to get manu out. It is getting more clear day by day by his action. And he has no right to prove a ciminal as innocense. If manu is innocense Ram jethmanali do not require to play games with judiciary system and does not need to give so many different statment in court.. from shikh man to manhood…

“Though a lawyer has the duty to represent his client to the best of his ability, he should not neglect the fact that his loyalty is to the law.”

It simply means that the lawyer should not violate the law while defending his client – like producing fake evidence or false witnesses etc. It does not mean that lawyers should sit in judgement over their clients. It has no contradiction with “He must also defend a person accused of a crime, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused ….”

Nitin, you are right in assuming that professional ethic of the legal profession in India does not adopt Gandhian ideals of the legal profession. Of course, some lawyers may do so in a personal capacity but the Code of Conduct itself does not put any responsibility on them to do so.

When we put the such responsibility on the defence lawyers, we are effectively just shielding shoddy investigation and prosecution.

Yes, it is all in the spirit of conversation. My comment was not to challenge you to produce something with academic rigour, but rather, test your opinion against an authoritative source, to seek facts that can inform opinions. [The tagline of this blog is 'the education of an opinionated mind'].

Thank you for that bit of research, that should leave us all the wiser.

“He must also defend a person accused of a crime, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused ….”

and

“Though a lawyer has the duty to represent his client to the best of his ability, he should not neglect the fact that his loyalty is to the law. ”

So Jethmalani is on the right side of the code, but the code itself sounds contradictory to me.

Nitin, we’re just having a conversation, so it’s unfair to demand that I justify my opinions with academic rigor.

Does what I say make sense to you? I do not see my views as constituting a lofty benchmark. I do not believe that one’s profession entitles one to gloss over moral/ethical questions that one otherwise is, as a responsible citizen and human being, expected not to give short shrift to.

POTA had a clause that anybody possessing information on terrorists or terrorist activities had an obligation to disclose it to law-enforcement. Journalists hit the streets claiming that POTA jeopardized their profession since “sources” would not talk if their identity was not kept secret. Journalists also claimed that an implicit contract of confidentiality obtained between them and their sources. They demanded that they be excluded from that POTA clause. The government didn’t agree. We don’t agree either, do we? We don’t agree because we know that journalists’ responsibilities as journalists do not supercede their resposnsibilites as citizens.

The same principle applies to ALL professions. The first commitment of a lawyer, like of any of us, ought to be to *justice*. His obligation to the client comes only next.

Defence Lawyer: The job of DL is to examine evidence, cross-examine witnesses, explain circumstance and perhaps also to present witnesses and evidence. All this, with a view to establish either “reasonable doubt” or complete innocense of the accused.

State/Police: To investigate a criminal act, find evidence and witnesses so as to find and apprehend those like to have committed the crime. Then, with the help of PL, to prepare a case against the accused.

Judge(s): To examine all the facts presented before them, to listen to both sides and then to pronounce a judgement.

Rather than the DL to convince himself of the client’s innocense, it the PL and the Police who have to convince themselves of the person’s guilt so as to be able to present him as an “accused”. It is the PL and Police’s job to prepare a foolproof case against the accused. The DL’s job, in a way, is to pick holes in such a case – whether technical, procedural or factual.

It is not the DL’s job to act on something he “knows” is his “heart of hearts”. He *must* act in his client’s best interests. If he knows that he can get his client free because of poor investigation, he *must* do exactly that.

Now assume that a criminal gets acquitted and then goes on to commit more crimes. Whose responsibility is that? It is the responsibility (in a moral sense) of PL and/or the Polie, not of the DL.

If the DLs were to start sitting in judgement on their clients, the criminal justice system would not work.

I am responding to Jethmalani’s claim hat he doesn’t have to convince himself of his client’s innocence. I think he has to.

Under these circumstances, what is a lawyer to do when he knows, in his heart of hearts, that his client is guilty, but also knows that since the evidence against him is weak, an acquittal can be secured? I am saying that the lawyer should not take up the client’s case, or, if he does take it up, then may do so only to plead guilty and to try and secure a lenient sentence.

I can see that this holds if a moral perspective of the Gandhian kind is the benchmark. But I’m still not convinced that the professional ethic of the legal profession in India adopts such a lofty benchmark. Perhaps you would help us along by referring us to an authoritative source.

I am basically saying that a lawyer should not plead the innocence of his client unless he is convinced of it. I am saying that a lawyer should do an honest, sincere due diligence before defending him in a court of law as not guilty.

Courts go by the evidence on record. The strength of that evidence determines the outcome of the trial. (In India, evidence itself can be tampered with.) Legal arguments are ‘technical’ in nature. They do not necessarily establish truth all the time. Guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and most jurisprudences apply a very liberal interpretation of the word “reasonable”.

Under these circumstances, what is a lawyer to do when he knows, in his heart of hearts, that his client is guilty, but also knows that since the evidence against him is weak, an acquittal can be secured? I am saying that the lawyer should not take up the client’s case, or, if he does take it up, then may do so only to plead guilty and to try and secure a lenient sentence.

Contrariwise, what is a lawyer to do when he knows that his client is innocent but the evidence against him is overwhelmingly strong? He must work in the best interest of his client, and that might mean pleading guilty as well.

Not contesting this point.

>> I’m surprised that you should think that a lawyer defending an accused is ‘party to wrong-doing’.

Only if the lawyer knows that his client is guilty, and knowing so fully well, pleads in a court that he is not guilty.

Such a lawyer is effectively lying.

A lot of you guys seem to have gotten me wrong. Let me clarify what I am resposnding to. I am responding to Jethmalani’s claim hat he doesn’t have to convince himself of his client’s innocence. I think he has to.

I’m surprised that you should think that a lawyer defending an accused is ‘party to wrong-doing’. Moreover, even the guilty have a right to legal representation.

A lawyer us supposed to assist the court in arriving at a correct decision. However, the way legal system works, he is ultimately an advocate of his client and has to keep his best interests in the mind. If that means, not speaking the whole truth, so be it.