Rohit Kapoor
Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbor to compromise whenever you can. As a peacemaker the lawyer has superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough. Abraham Lincoln.
After more than two decades of experiencing, listening and even participating in informal discussions amongst colleagues & friends, five Months ago, I initiated a worldwide debate in my professional grid on web, Good lawyer means! With an anxiety to see if there could be a broad consensus? I have picked up some of the divergent views, in verbatim, for readers to form an opinion or have a thought what they think of this professional class which owes moral responsibility for an orderly society.
The first and an instant response came from Bob Lockhart , Senior Consultant at United Kingdom and he simply said “Winner”. And this ignited the debate.
One Commercial Arbitrator based in Malaysia commented “A good lawyer is one who can make the greatest amount of money by expending the least amount of effort in the shortest possible time, and ensures that the client remains a perpetual client who markets for you”.
I asked, should a Lawyer defend an accused knowing he has actually committed murder or rape and want to plead “not guilty” on the strength of ability of his lawyer to get acquittal by sheer advocacy or bad investigation etc.
Geoffrey Beresford Hartwell, Engineer Arbitrator Wallington, Greater London, United Kingdom responded by saying, “May I make a confession? I have asked counsel to express an opinion and, on occasion, I have received an answer. I am not concerned with crime, of course, and the state (or states) is not concerned with what I do.
If every other profession hast to be wholly truthful because to do otherwise would be to abuse the special knowledge of that profession, why should the lawyer be differently privileged?
I know the answer in respect of the Court. It is that the Judge, from his superior knowledge, knows the law for him/herself so error on the part of counsel is immaterial.”
Bob Lockhart , “Knowing, certainly not. However, unless his client has admitted to the crime to his lawyer, how would he ‘know’ that. A barrister has to adhere to the cab rank rule irrespective of any belief or opinion which he may have formed as to the character reputation cause conduct guilt or innocence of that person.”
Geoffrey Beresford Hartwell , “Bob, I have been an arbitrator for forty years and more – I was selected and appointed by the President of my Institution. I was Professor of Arbitration Law at Glamorgan for some years. I taught in four other Law Schools but I don’t know any law and I know I don’t know, which is the key. As to qualities, how about knowing what you’re doing and a sense of Natural Justice? I would say also an aptitude for logic but philosophy is anathema to English Law. I was overturned once – on a questionable point of allocating costs to a time-wasting issue pursued by a victor. Modern English Law, however, does exactly as I did. I’m still on amicable terms with the Judge. ”
Andrew Kearney , Responded, “Geoffrey I know the answer in respect of the Court. It is that the Judge, from his superior knowledge, knows the law for him/herself so error on the part of counsel is immaterial”. This isn’t so – the Judge does not know all of the law, and no-one could expect him/her to, and we are under a duty to bring relevant precedents to the Court’s attention in any particular case.
How about “resolving problems quickly without sacrificing ethics”? Chief Executive at Traprain Consultants Ltd, Edinburgh, United Kingdom commented “Clients want their problems resolved – which is a “win” for them. Telling a client they have lost a case, but the lawyer was really professional, and the law has been developed as a result slightly misses the point.”
Andrew Kearney , Barrister, Chartered Arbitrator, Bristol, United Kingdom, ” as for the original question and the follow up “Should a Lawyer defend an accused knowing he has actually committed murder or rape and wants to plead ‘not guilty’ ….- Really ? Can we not do a bit better (and more original) than that as a discussion?” Geoffrey Beresford Hartwell ; “Andrew, I admit that the principle “curia novit lex”(a Latin legal maxim expressing the principle that “the court knows the law”, i.e., that the parties to a legal dispute do not need to plead or prove the law that applies to their case.) is a more continental concept, but the fact remains that a Judges formation differs from that of we lesser breeds for whom arbitral legislation is intended.” Andrew Kearney responded, “Geoffrey, the Overriding Objective – the purposive first provision of the (English) Civil Procedure Rules – says much the same thing about fairness ……. the rest follows that purpose. I’m not really seeing the distinction you draw.” Mark Peter G Construction Lawyer in adjudication / arbitration, United Kingdom: “The good lawyer is not the one who has an eye to every side and angle of contingency, and qualifies all his qualifications, but who throws himself on your part so heartily, that he can get you out of a scrape.”
We could debate Jessel and Holmes, but without straying from the thread, I may add another view on the subject “So conduct yourself that even if you lose a case, you do not lose your client. Some day, you might have to lose your case as also your client, but so conduct yourself that you don’t lose your Court (Judge), and lastly some day, you might have to lose all three, but so conduct yourself that you do not lose your conscience…..” This may have many takers, and it is possible to adopt.
Mr. Nani Palkhivala once said, referring to his senior Mr. Jamshetji Kanga, that he had intellect enough to succeed without industry and industry enough to succeed without intellect. The combination carried him ahead of everyone. Such is the importance of industry.
Alaa Elemary , Attorney at Law Egypt may have a significant point when he says “One who is capable of both protecting the legal rights & defending the legitimate interests of the clients, guarding professional ethics.”
Significant consensus that emerges from debate is essentially encumbered with what may be summarized as “Success (Knowledge, of course an all important component) with Ethics.” And this makes a Good Lawyer. What do you think?
Follow our WhatsApp channel