Who I and why?

I'm a keen reader of blogs and read a wide range including Bystander's Magistrates' Blog, the Anonymous Prosecutor, several police blogs, Frank Chalk and Winston Smith.  There are others, but those are the main ones.

I just read Inspector Gadget's latest post, in particular this paragraph:

Wayne’s solicitor is clearly speaking about a different person to the one that Mandy and I have been dealing with. The Wayne he speaks of is a loving father to his new baby, a man riven by guilt and remorse at his previous behaviour, a man deeply committed to change, a man who now wants to do volunteer work in his community. A man clean of drugs who has, yes, failed his last two drugs tests at probation, and missed the last twelve, but still, he is trying. This is  a very changed man your worships. Changed even since the last time, and the time before that, when he was also changed from the time before that. The solicitor is cleaver. He doesn’t believe a bit of this. He is careful to say ‘my client tells me that….’ before each lie. But school fees are school fees.

I suspect from Gadget's final remark about school fees that he places defence lawyers in the same category of wrong 'uns as our clients.  This is not a unusual attitude in my experience.  Most people realise that lawyers have a job and do that job, but some people think that we are somehow colluding to get our clients off at all costs.  I think every defence lawyer will at some point experience the onslaught of a non-lawyer (probably in the pub) who wants to take you to task about your dealings with criminals and will ask you repeatedly how you can do you job etc etc.  So, I thought I might try to explain what we actually do.

Do we help clients fabricate their accounts to escape justice?  Well, the truth is that yes some solicitors will do that.  In the same way that some police officers are corrupt, some medics kill their patients and sometimes a sportsman will take a bribe to throw a game.  Should they do it?  Of course not and the sooner such people are caught and thrown out of the profession the better.  Like most solicitors I am honest and am not interested in helping a client make up things to get him off.  When I hear of solicitors risking their career and putting their families in financial jeopardy I am always amazed at their stupidity.

For the vast majority of solicitors in my field, the job involves obtaining disclosure whether in writing or orally from a police officer at the police station.  I then make an assessment of that evidence - what is it?  Is it reliable?  Does the evidence support the charge/allegation?  Is information being kept from me?  At police stations pre-interview it is common in serious cases for some information to be kept back as officers are not required to disclose any of their evidence if they don't want to.  I'll look at a whole range of other things including whether the evidence is actually admissible etc.  Once that is done I'll speak to the client.  I'll tell him about the evidence and my views of it.  I'll explain the law both what the prosecution need to prove to convict him and any defences that exist to the allegation.  As part of this, I will listen to his account.  After that is done I will give him some simple advice along the lines of you need to plead guilty or not guilty.

It's up to the client whether he accepts my advice, most do but some don't.  One client refused my repeated advice that he should plead guilty to a burglary charge on the basis that he was seen climbing out of the window where his finger prints were found on the inside.  He refused my repeated advice and we went to trial at the crown court.  Now this presents an interesting challenge that Gadget alluded to in his post.  I don't really believe what the client is saying; however, I have a professional duty to act in the client's best interests and am barred from refusing to represent him once a retainer is in place.  This is how you sometimes get to the point of hearing cliches such as "I am instructed that..." or "My client tells me that..."  On a side note, we've all done it but I think that this is very poor advocacy and it is the sort of thing that previous Lord Chief Justices have frowned upon - anybody with any common sense knows that if you say "John loves his son and wants to change his ways" then you can only be relaying information from John so why say it in the first place.  In any case, now that I am instructed I have to continue unless I become professionally embarrassed - and not believing a client is insufficient for that test.  In the case of my alleged burglar he went to trial and much to my surprise was acquitted by a jury in less than 15 minutes!  In other cases, ignored advice has led to a more predictable outcome, with the consequence that the client loses the reduction in his sentence he would have received for pleading.

  Of course you wouldn't and if you ever find yourself accused of a crime you didn't commit (or maybe one you did) you'll be pleased that there are people like me ready to help you.

You may (or may not) be wondering why I became a solicitor.  Did I do it out of a sense of justice?  Do I hate the police/authority?  Was I hoping to become rich?  Well, the answer to all of these questions is NO.  The truth is I'm not sure how I got here.  I've never had the almost religious urge to fight for justice that some lawyers seem to have.  Outside of work I've only ever had positive encounters with the police (including the time I was pulled over for jumping a red light).  I definitely haven't become rich doing this job, although I'm not about to pretend that I'm on the breadline.  But, I'm here now and I will carry on doing my best for clients no matter what their circumstances and I'll still put forward their instructions no matter how unbelievable their claims may be.