Are Criminal Lawyers Ethical?
453797
This is basically just a philosophical debate, but I'll put in my two cents.  I know criminal defense attorneys who are very ethical, moral people.  They believe in innocent until proven guilty, which is the foundational principal of our criminal justice system.  Of course, most criminal defendants are convicted (and by implication, most people charged are guilty).  But that does not change the fact that we would want everyone to have a quality defense, because any right we would want for ourselves should be guaranteed to everyone.\n\nJohn Adams (the second President) was a lawyer, and he helped write the Declaration of Independence.  Very cool guy, besides being a Father of Our Country.  Right before the Revolution, he volunteered to represent the British soldiers who were charged in the killings in the Boston Massacre and other lawyers didn't want to represent them(look it up if you don't remember Revolutionary War history).  Even though he lost, he has been quoted as saying that it's the case he was the proudest of taking.  Now that's an ethical stand: one of the Founding Fathers as the criminal defense attorney for the very British troops who were killing the citizens of Boston at the start of the Revolutionary War, because he knew they deserved a fair trial.
349164
No, 'abuse of power' is not a crime or an ethics violation for lawyers.  I am not sure what you mean.  Using government agencies for research is generally not only legal, it is encouraged, because they have the official sources of information, text of court opinions, official filings, etc.  If by personal research you mean that it was not business related, and somehow they should have paid for it but did not, then that could be some kind of fraud, but your question is very unclear.
313851
say a serial killer is also a scientist. so he takes detailed research notes on every murder he commits. and he gets away with killing over and over again. after some time, he will either get caught, or he will get away with it. someday, someone will find the papers he left, or he will try to profit from it himself. would it be moral or just to use this murderer's research? \n\nit is theoretically possible that the information from that murderer's crimes could be useful to the living. but in using it, aren't we disrespecting the victims? aren't we disregarding the methods used to obtain the information? say he was living, and still attempting to justify his actions from prison, or to himself in secret... wouldn't it be helping him justify the worth of his heinous acts? it's like paying him, if not with money then with respect. it's an untenable position.
934064
Unethical people or people with no conscience? There are many psychopaths around us today. Blended into society. Thief's,liars,murderers,sadists,procrastinators - I could go on forever, but the reason you seem to think that it is the Unethical people of our society that succeeds in  business, is for one and one reason only! Your young, have little of life's experiences under your belt. Just wait until you are older, and your list may be longer than mine!
346647
Of course not.\n\nBecause who's ethical codes to you follow? All have their flaws and their good points!\n\nBest to just do what you feel is wrong and right and hope for the best.
1154884
It' is a necessary non-fiction given the laws/rules that exist.\n\nLet's take a 1000 person firm, spread out across the US in a dozen offices. Under the rules as written, the knowledge of one person in that firm is imputed to every single other member of the firm. Even if they don't ever communicate, or don't even know the other 900 attorneys exist. That's unreasonable.\n\nThe ethical wall allows an attorney to work with a client on a non-direct conflict, simply by keeping isolated from other attorneys that are involved in the collateral conflict. \n\nIt makes it more likely that a large firm would be willing to do pro-bono work, because the firm now doesn't have to lose the big client or sacrifice the pro-bono client, just because 10 years ago the pro-bono client sued a later-acquired subsidiary of the big client on an unrelated issue in a different state.\n\nUnder current conflict laws in most jurisdictions, that tenuous collateral interaction is enough to disqualify the firm. Which, for a firm of 1000 attorneys in 12 states, is really just silly. The entire system for determining conflicts needs to be re-worked, and until then the ethical wall is the best solution available to reflect the reality of practice.
160616
Human morals lead ethics in law. The concept is that we have a universal code that we need to live up to as human beings. For some, that's religion. For others, that's just the law. \n\nWe tie those morals into the law so that it's not optional. You follow the rules or you pay the consequences. It's that simple.\n\nLaws we make should be just and in good conscience. What's more, we should make them fairly and always have the means to repeal them or change them.
546846
Certain categories of the profession are looked down upon.  The ambulance chasers, the class action guys have given the profession a bad name.  The defense lawyers who defend obvious guilty people don't add much in favor to the profession, either.  A lawyer is either the bad guy who is trying to take something from you (prosecuting attorney trying to get you convicted, or your spouses divorce lawyer trying to take half of everything you own,  or the lawyer for  clumsy guy who tripped and fell in your store trying to sue you for $3,000,000.  \n\nOr if you're on the opposite side of the examples given above - he's your savior who is saving you from something (jail) or is helping get you something - that $3,000,000 dollars.
701146
99%.  I have been practicing in both the public and private sector for 8 years, and most lawyers are generally honest.  I can only think of one (of many thousands) with whom I have dealt that I would consider dishonest.  I don't know where that perception comes from.  It's undeserved.  \n\nI would trust a lawyer before I would trust a real estate broker (the least trustworthy and most self interested people in the world, in my opinion), some doctors, all dentists (all the one I know are at least a little bit nuts), and even some priests.
999797
Yes and no.\n\nI think the criminal system, even with it's flaws is still the best.  I wouldn't want to lose my rights to an attorney or a trial by a jury of the community and being innocent until proven guilty etc. when my freedom is at stake.\n\nCIVIL LAW however DESPERATELY needs to be OVERHAULED!  The fact that anyone can sue anyone else for anything and that person sued still has to go through the courts to get a case dismissed is TOO loose.  I think that there should be more ethics requirements on lawyers and fines for those who file frivilous lawsuits to discourage such stupid practices.
853218
Several reasons.  One, they often represent criminals accused of horrible crimes, and do their best to get them acquitted.  While doing so is essential to a just legal system, people often blame the lawyers for doing "too good a job."\n\nSecond, many of them really do make a ton of money off of the misfortunes of other people.  Chemical plant leaks and gives hundreds of people cancer?  Yippee, a tort lawyer's gold mine.  You get the picture :)\n\nMy father's a lawyer, and a couple of my best friends are.  I know a lot of them.  By and large, they're highly ethical, honest, hard-working, and very intelligent people.  But there are still an awful lot of lawyers out there that aren't ethical at all, and will do anything for money...that's true in any profession, but lawyers who do that are often quite visible in society :)\n\nGood luck with your studies.
1104402
They might not be as competent...this is true.  But all attorneys take an oath to represent their clients to the best of their ability.  Their competency will depend on their experience...and their passion.  Your brother would be smart to be very proactive...participate as much as he can..give as much information, ask as many questions as he can..help in his defense.
229963
Usually, business ethics is a contradiction. In this day and age, ethics and standards for quality are a huge impediment being successful working for most corporations and medium-sized businesses. More than reliability and performance concerns, concerns about whether you'll be too much of an idealist are at the fore when companies interview employees. I think we've got Rome all over again lately.
724083
I would imagine so unless you forsee that within the next ten years everyone will get along and work together toward a common goal for all of humanity.  One where we live in an ideal utopia with no differences and no grudges and no disagreements and devoid of any crimes.  Yeah, like that's going to happen!  Being that as it is, I would say that a career in law will most definitely still be a lucrative occupation.  Unless of course you become a public defender.
224384
A Lawyer has an ethical duty, imposed by law, to assess reasonable fees for services. Failure to observe the duty can subject the lawyer to suspension or disbarment. \n\nWhat fee is reasonable, is generally determined by what other lawyers who practice in the same community charge for similar services. \n\nHowever, an attorney with considerable experience in criminal law and especially DUI defense can "reasonably" charge more for his/her services. \n\nMost people are unaware that they have considerable control over the cost of legal representation. Lawyers all deliver itemized statements for services rendered, and if you as a client, believe that a particular service is unreasonable, then by your writing a letter to the lawyer and stating that you wish to place the particular billing charge in dispute, the lawyer is legally obligated to leave the amount in dispute in the client's trust account until such time as the dispute is resolved. \n\nThis means that neither you nor the lawyer can touch the money until you either come to a negotiated settlement of the matter, or a judge or arbitrator makes a determination of what amount of fee is reasonable under the circumstances.
925310
G'day MoeVaygen,\n\nThank you for your question.\n\nI would stick with criminology. It will come in handy when you are practising as a criminal lawyer. Possibly look at doing it as your major together with some more traditional subjects.\n\nI would speak with counsellors at your school. If you have any contacts in law schools, I would seek your advice.  In answering a similar question, Professor X advised that "Law school admissions committees are looking for students that write clearly and elegantly, read closely, and demonstrate strong critical thinking abilities." \n\nThe nub of his advice is that law schools are looking for people who have done programs with intellectual rigor. \n\nTaranto got best answer on an question on whether economics was a good major by arguing that doing a course different from the norm may be an advantage. Certainly criminology may be useful background for someone studying criminal law and a definite advantage for someone practising it.\n\nIf your criminology course is highly regarded, you enjoy it and it is useful, I would stick with it.\n\nRegards
365621
Both seek to decide what is right and wrong. Ethics is more of a personal opinion. Law is the collection of views of society members.