The article “The Ethics of Defense Lawyers” by Jamie Flook of the American Psychological Association focuses on a major concern in the legal world: the ethical nature, or really the unethical nature, of both criminal defense and criminal prosecution. In an attempt to conclude whether criminal law, specifically defense, is inherently ethical, unethical, or if there could be a balance of both, Flook did research into the patterns in characteristics of criminal defense lawyers and interviewed multiple sources for their insight on the topic. Flook concluded that for lawyers to defend clients that were almost certainly guilty, lawyers most commonly would either take a clear objective approach to the case focused solely on their job in working for their client while putting aside any personal feelings or views they have, look at the case from a larger perspective; as a mode of say balancing power or fighting for some larger social change, or in other cases seemed to have mental wiring, seen often in Narcissistic Personality Disorder or psychopathy, that allowed the true guilt or innocence of their client to be irrelevant to them. For me, this questioning and debate into the concern about ethics in much of the legal world sparks immense interest and is something I plan to incorporate into my research and likely into my projects. I plan to interview lawyers myself, just as Flook did, with my own scope on the issue of ethics and pick apart different cases and experiences that have been troubling for them from an ethical perspective and what they have done to combat this difficulty in order to be the best lawyer possible without having complete disregard for personal morals, values, and views.
During her research Flook interviewed two successful lawyers: The Secret Banister, an anonymous online author and defense lawyer, and Isabelle Coutant-Peyre, a French defense lawyer who has defended major criminals with involvement in massive heinous crimes. When asked about ethical concerns of their work, both responded that it was not their job to make judgment, it was solely their job to defend their client to the best of their ability. This helped me understand that lawyers must view themselves as pieces in a trusted system of justice. And as a part of that system the accused, no matter what crime committed, deserve fair trials and strong defense that they are entitled to as people that consent to that system of justice. This strictly objective view of law allows lawyers to do their job with their client’s innocence irrelevant to their work. But does this truly make the practice ethical? If a lawyer is able to successfully defend a client whom they know is guilty, are they really winning the case? This leads to a debate about the nature of justice itself. Is justice in our system simply making the correct conviction or is justice a fair trial and process of convicting an individual, regardless of whether the verdict is correct or not? Another lawyer interviewed explains that he has trust in the system that they will make the correct conviction even if he is on the side of a guilty defendant. However, I disagree with this view as the correct conviction will not always happen for a multitude of different possible reasons.
There is a delineation between personal ethics, the morals of the lawyer as an individual, and professional ethics, the duty and responsibility of a lawyer to do right by their client no matter what. From this perspective, I feel that the lawyer mentioned above is acting unethically from a professional standpoint. If he is hoping for a correct conviction, regardless of his side in the trial, then he is not objectively fighting to win on behalf of his client at all legal costs. That would be a breach of professional ethics on his side and unfair to his client who is expecting to be defended profusely.
If it is ethical for a lawyer to defend their client, as it is not only their job but their place as a piece in a functioning puzzle that is the justice system, to what extent should they attempt to defend their client. Certain practices and technicalities lead to innocent verdicts or cases getting dropped despite a lawyer knowing for certain that their client is guilty. For example, the practice of greymail. Greymail is where lawyers demand relevant evidence to be released by the prosecution that would be embarrassing or harmful to the prosecuting side in order to get a case to be dropped. In this example, the lawyer could know for a fact that their client is guilty or is likely to lose the case and so they use this “technical loophole” to win the case regardless. Is this practice ethical? If lawyers are indeed responsible for doing their job and dedicating themselves to the justice system and its rules, then is the system clearly flawed for allowing clear criminals to run free? If so, how can a lawyer justify working blindly as a part of that system? Or are lawyers individually driven to defend questionable clients for reasons other than a dedication to the system and their work?
The questions posed by the conflicting ideas presented in the article show the complexity of this issue. Different definitions of justice, different strategies used by lawyers to justify their practice and find clear objectivity in their assignments, overlapping ethical responsibilities, and disagreements around this realm all combine into an extremely debatable topic that affect our entire legal system and the profession of lawyers as a whole make me want to take an ethical lens to law as I pursue my research in the future. Additionally, as I seek to find which area of law interests me the most, this lens will be applicable to a wide range of legal sects, specifically criminal and corporate law, both of which I have taken a firm interest in. As can be seen by the many questions this simple article left me with, this is an area where extensive research can be done.