Tell me about Lawyers&#39; thoughts on defending clients that they know are guilty
<p>There are <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/7965/what-does-a-lawyer-do-if-they-know-for-absolute-certain-that-their-client-is-gui">other questions</a> that address the role that lawyers play in defending clients and the difference between knowledge and proof. I am instead asking about the human element and the impact on lawyers themselves when defending people that are quite guilty (in the layperson's sense, at lease). </p>

<p>This question came to mind when reading a recent article on the El Chapo case as one of his lawyers describes him as a very nice guy. We could also hold the same discussion about the counsel for the Aurora or El Paso shooters.</p>

<p>I would like to know what kind of emotional, professional, or even philosophical challenges that lawyers for these people face. I understand that there will be defenses constructed that may call into question mental states, arrest and evidence procedures, or even conspiracy theories. I am not interested in the legal aspect of these cases. </p>

<p>I am curious as to whether some of these lawyers are ever troubled by their part in providing legal defense (whether or not they were successful). Have there been any autobiographies or firsthand accounts of these struggles? I would be interested in understanding the human drama that exists between performing one's job, upholding one's professional values, and navigating the atrocities that humans are capable of.</p>

<p>You should read "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stories_of_the_Law_and_How_It%27s_Broken" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Stories of the Law and How It Is Broken</a>". It includes a chapter on exactly this issue.</p>

<p>Briefly, the author was the junior "pupil" (i.e. newly qualified and learning the ropes of real practice) of a senior barrister who was defending a man accused by his daughters (now adults) of having repeatedly raped them when they were children. The man never admitted his guilt to the barristers, which meant that they could sit in court and watch him testify to his innocence. However his general attitude to the accusations led them to privately conclude that he was probably guilty. Despite this they defended him to the best of their ability, primarily by picking holes in his daughters' testimonies, and he was found not guilty.</p>

<p>Its easy to ask how this is ethical. However the job of deciding guilt or innocence belongs to the jury. It does not belong to the defence lawyer, and there are good reasons for this. Imagine a world in which the defence lawyers were required to take a view on the guilt of their clients, and then not provide an effective defence if they believed in their guilt. For example, suppose that they see a client deny guilt on oath and suspect, but not know, that the client is lying. If they are required to stand up and say "Excuse me m'lord but I believe my client is probably lying" then they have torpedoed their client's case. So when an accused first talks to their lawyer they would have to, without any advice or help, defend themselves to their lawyer. If the accused failed to persuade the lawyer then they would be denied an effective defence, even though they might actually be innocent.</p>

<p>Another way to look at it: when you are accused of a crime the entire uncaring machinery of the State is ranged against you, publicly funded and quite capable of entirely destroying your life. They know the rules, how to play the game. It seems only fair that in all of this there should be <em>someone</em> on your side.</p>

lawyer