All fair-minded persons are interested in a legal system, which ensures justice and fairness. It has to be based on righteousness. In such case the victim will be given a fair trial and appropriate punishment awarded assuming the right and convincing evidence is presented. Marshalling the evidence and presentation of arguments are the roles assigned to the lawyers. But in reality due to malfunctioning of the system of collecting evidence and the propensity to manipulate and twist it to one’s advantage, evidence gets distorted. This weakens the case and often goes against the victim. The accused is acquitted or he escapes with minor penalty.
Recently I read an article titled “Why I hate Lawyers” by a CP This apart; generally there is a feeling that discharging a lawyer’s function necessitates import of utter lies. This is buttressed by a belief that one cannot survive in the profession or shine and above all make money without such tools. So lawyers are tainted with the quality of making false statements fully knowing the truth, to save the client and of course to get a heavy fee. Some are leeches. Some of them are called ambulance chasers. They never leave the clients. There are exceptions. We will run through some specimens who enlighten us with their honesty and crookedness.
One rare species belonging to the honest and upright category receives a case from a prospective client. He goes through it and says.
” You have no case. I am sorry cannot take it” He doesn’t take any fee for scrutiny. The client leaves the scene.
Another honest lawyer leaves the profession after practising for some years. He says” I don’t want to earn a livelihood by uttering falsehood and defending wrong cases”.
Then we come across the case of a lawyer with an elastic conscience. He knows the client has committed a serious offence. He tutors him. He asks the client to deny the offence. By some unusual combination of circumstances he wins the case.
In another case the lawyer plays with evidence in a motor accident case. He finds a loophole in the statement regarding distance from a specified point. In the police report the distance is stated as X kms. He sets the milometer at zero and finds the distance is X.5 kms. He wins the case. He gets a foreign trip as a bonus from the client accused.
We are all interested in the growth and nobility of the profession. We respect lawyers and their service. But are we not justified in expecting that their services are firmly rooted in ethics and righteousness apart from mere hair-splitting arguments and interpretation of law?