Complexlity
@complexlity
Randomly thinking about how the law profession can be very weird. Imagine a murder case. The defendant hires a lawyer, we'll call him `Croth`. The plaintiff hires Lorenzo. The defendant is guilty but it needs to be proven. Croth, being a good lawyer, asks for the entire truth from their client. Their client confesses to him knowing it should all be protected under lawyer-client priviledge. Croth then goes behind and talks to Lorenzo. Taking some bribe to give information that would actually make the case proven. In court, Lorenzo would now present the case like he made those findings and in the end Croth begs from lighter sentence for their client. Even though Croth orchestrated the whole thing, no one can prove he did, well except Lorenzo. And if he also cannot reveal the truth as there's a huge chance the evidences would be inadmissible and the case re-opened. In the end the only one that loses is the defendant which btw thought lighter sentence was a good work by Croth.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Complexlity
@complexlity
@croth.eth and @lorenzo-007 mentioned btw. Just be good lawyers both of you :)
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Geisha
@geisha
Lol, none of would ever happen IRL in my country anyway. Rule no 1. Don’t ask your client if they did it. The state prosecutes for murder as it’s criminal case. Criminal defence lawyers have huge egos (and tend to not like state prosecutors very much so wouldn’t hand them a case) and ALWAYS want to get their client acquitted. even if a murderer or a rapist etc. See rule no 1. You cannot plead innocent if your client has confessed to you as that would be lying to the court which is where your first loyalty lies ethically.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
