Given that most of the above professions are paid to LIE on behalf of their clients, do you think it is a good system to have lawyers/barristers etc. serving in our parliament. (Think the legally qualified and once practising barrister Tony Blair.) His history of honesty, (or the lack of it) especially over Iraq and sold peerages highlights this question of their suitability.
2006-11-18 08:10:37 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
After all the answers I still believe "Briefs" lie on behalf of their fee paying clients, I also see them as failed actors what with the wigs, gowns and buckled shoes, surely no longer part of the 21st century a device meant to intimidate the poor in the 17th and 18th centurys. As one answerer said, we all tell lies, I've lied to protect my children, but the outcome is no where near as catastrophic as when Blair and other M.Ps. lie. When professionals turn out to be a "bad 'un" the consequences are far reaching to many many people.Think Harold Shipman estimated to have killed 236 persons in 24 years, Blairs total far exceeds that if one takes into account British soldiers and Iraqi civilians. For what? Iraq is in a worst state now than under Saddam, but we all know he was not the real target, it was OIL. my final thoughts are at least Harold had the decency to top his self
2006-11-20 08:30:06 · update #1
"Chris cc" thinks it is "fine" (strange word in the circumstances) to invade Iraq, killing tens of thousands of people to get one man out of power, it wasn't any thing to do with him trying to be better than his daddy was it, or is that me being cynical.
2006-11-20 08:44:19 · update #2
Just a thought, you holier than thou legal eagles how did O.J. Simpson get away with murder if you Lawers/Barristers/Attorneys and Solicitors hadn't lied?????????????
2006-11-21 08:45:02 · update #3
Most of those professions, you say. I'm glad you are not referring to all of them! Well, barristers aren't paid to lie. If they have reason (as opposed to merely suspicion) for believing that their client is lying to them, they have to ask the court to release them from representing him. If they are found to have misled the court, then they are subject to disciplinary proceedings.
2006-11-18 08:23:08 · answer #1 · answered by Doethineb 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is for England and Wales. They are all lawyers, which is a generic term for those who practice the law. A solicitor is the High Street lawyer you would consult for legal advice, to draw up documents, oversee transactions etc.. A barrister is a lawyer entitled to argue a case before a court, though some solicitors may now do this too in minor matters. The Attorney General for England and Wales is the chief law officer of the Crown in England and Wales, and advises and represents the Crown and government departments in court.
2016-03-29 00:50:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, all of those professions are forbidden from lying, and in most jurisdictions, lying to the court or another attorney is an ethical violation that could lead to sanctions or even disbarrment.
Sadly, many attorneys/lawyers/etc. do lie. They break the rules and do it so that they don't get punished for it. It's an affront to the professional, and shameful conduct. And it's led to the general populace having a disdain for what used to be an honorable callling. Please don't let the actions of a few (or even many) tarnish the rest of us who take our ethical obligations seriously.
But you're talking about allowing those with legal training into govt. We all know that politicians lie -- that's almost become a core skill required in the profession for success.
Here's the problem. The solution that you seem to propose would prohibit anyone with significant legal training from being party to making the laws. That's like barring anyone who has gone to medical school from performing surgery. It's not a solution.
The best answer is to hold politicians (and attorneys) accountable and force them to live up to their ethical obligations. Punish the people who are breaking the law, not everyone else.
2006-11-18 08:49:24 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am a barrister and I have never lied in Court. I I were to do so I would face disciplinary measures from the Bar Council (and rightly so). As other who have answered your question rightly point out - if we have reason to believe that a client is lying then it is our duty to apply to the Court to come off the record and no longer represent that client. It is also a myth that criminal practitioners represent people that they know full well are guilty.
2006-11-20 04:40:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Considering that many Parliamentarians are legal eagles doesn't it amaze you how much useless law they produce? You'd think they would understand the implications of the laws they pass wouldn't you? I think most of the legislation is enacted so they can get a job in 'the city' afterwards interpreting it for whole new list of clients!
2006-11-23 10:58:15 · answer #5 · answered by phil m 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Parliament creates legislation, hence its not unusual to find the "majority" of lawyers there. Given most have the most gruelling start to their careers (in terms of academic rigour and tons of exams etc) its not surprising that "some" give the impression that they are "resting" or adopt the type of demeanor that would suggest that they are "relaxing" in a place which I think is far from relaxing. I think you have to be interested in law and get a kick out of being exposed to law and lots of it to survive in parliament, everything is about survival is it not? (I'm also not a lawyer)
2006-11-18 20:03:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are also good at getting to the truth, as well as being hire-able by corrupts and criminals. I think there should be more questions put to them by the public, broadcast.
Of all that government involves itself with or could involve itself with, I think Blair invading Iraq is fine. There is plenty of nonsense here that is pushed to the side. The tv companies help with distracting us from other matters.
2006-11-18 08:17:18 · answer #7 · answered by Chris cc 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good Questions! i don't know the answer to it but ..i
think they are all in each others coat pocket some how,, you try suing a lawyer who does a bad job over charges then you will see what i am going on about...
2006-11-25 06:26:51 · answer #8 · answered by marcus25 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Haven't you seen the cartoons of them at the law courts they are shown for what they are scheming self perpetuating lying money grabbing very very very small human beings
2006-11-18 08:30:03 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
people cannot handle the truth. that is why they need good liars.
you parents never told you the truth. your teachers never told you the truth. your girlfriend, boyfirend, spouse lies to you. The priests lie. Why should lawyers be any different. politicians lie, Generals lie, cops lie, judges lie, plaintiffs lie, defendants lie, but everybody blames the attorney who is the only one trying to be honest but cannot unless he breaks his oath to clients. this is the best system ever. believe it. the truth hurts.
2006-11-18 08:38:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋