Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Like Clients?

Dan Hull, in his What about Clients? blog (a good ques­tion, and a good blog; his blogroll includes many blogs from out­side the U.S.), lists 12 Rules of Client Ser­vice. I agree with Dan’s twelve rules 91.66%. But his Rule 1, “Rep­re­sent only clients you like,” is one that I’m not sure crim­i­nal lawyers can follow.

Unlike Dan, most crim­i­nal lawyers are a) not rep­re­sent­ing com­pa­nies; and b) not form­ing longterm attorney-client rela­tion­ships. Our clients are peo­ple, and if all goes well they will never be in trou­ble again. I don’t speak for all criminal-defense lawyers, but here at Ben­nett & Ben­nett we try to help our clients resolve what­ever issues got them tan­gled up with the law.

Some of our clients in fact did what­ever it is that the gov­ern­ment is accus­ing them of. Even our many factually-innocent clients have gen­er­ally mis­man­aged their lives to get involved in the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem; most crim­i­nal charges don’t appear as a bolt from the blue. Some of the ways our clients mis­man­age their lives make them hard to like.

It’s nice to like our clients, but I don’t think it’s cru­cial. What do you think?

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

2 Responses to “Like Clients?”

  1. Anonymous says:

    I agree with you, Mark. I am not a crim­i­nal defense lawyer, but as a layper­son I can imag­ine defend­ing peo­ple whom I do not like. Per­haps the peo­ple we do not like (e.g., those with exceed­ingly poor social skills) deserve a good defense most of all.

    An exam­ple: I am an aca­d­e­mi­cian. I rou­tinely read papers with which I strongly dis­agree, but I do not resort to ad hominem attacks. These are cheap shots. A real scholar attacks the mer­its of the argu­ments, not the char­ac­ter of the author mak­ing them.

  2. Mark Bennett says:

    Thank you for the com­ment. Your exam­ple is inter­est­ing — just as a real scholar attacks the mer­its of the argu­ments, a real lawyer defends the mer­its of the case. The prob­lem, how­ever, is that in a crim­i­nal prac­tice it’s dif­fi­cult to dis­tin­guish the mer­its of the case from the char­ac­ter of the accused.

Leave a non-anonymous Reply