FIRST CHARGE: DUTY LAWYER ABUSE POWER AND PRIVILEGE

The article examines the privileges and responsibilities of lawyers in their exercise of
freedom of speech. The author notes that lawyers are given absolute privilege to
argue their client's case without fear of libel action, but this privilege carries with it
the responsibility to ensure that it is not abused. The author points out that lawyers
have a duty to uphold the principles of justice and fairness, and must be held
accountable for their actions.

The author provides several historical examples of lawyers abusing their privilege,
including Francis Bacon's prosecution of the Earl of Essex and Sir Edward Coke's
abusive language towards Sir Walter Raleigh. The author also notes that some
prosecuting counsel in recent times have engaged in inflammatory language during
trials, which is not in keeping with the traditions of the Bar or the duty to ensure that
justice is done.

The article concludes that lawyers must recognize their responsibilities to society and
the legal profession, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness. The legal
profession must be grounded in ethical behavior, and lawyers must be held
accountable for their actions. By doing so, lawyers can maintain public trust and
confidence in the legal system.

DUTY TO BE FAIR

The passage discusses the essential importance of fairness and impartiality in legal
proceedings, specifically in criminal and civil cases. It emphasizes that a Counsel for
the prosecution in criminal cases should not press for a conviction but should bring
out any points in favor of the defendant. The Counsel must state the facts
dispassionately, whether they are in favor of a severe sentence or not. They cannot
suggest a sentence to the Judge but can draw attention to any mitigating
circumstances that may lead to a lesser sentence.

In civil cases, Counsel must have evidence to support any charges made and should
not make any unfounded accusations that could harm the accused. The passage also
stresses that the Counsel should not abuse the privilege of cross-examination and
should exercise it in a moderate and restrained manner. Overall, the Counsel should
act as a minister of justice to ensure that the accused is fairly treated, rather than as
an advocate to condemn them.

The author highlights the importance of criminal cases, stating that they are the most
important cases that lawyers have to deal with. He calls for criminal lawyers to
conduct themselves in a manner that does not deserve the negative perception that
some countries have of them. Finally, the passage stresses that fairness and
impartiality are crucial in all legal proceedings, and Counsel must ensure that they
adhere to these principles.

SECOND CHARGE: THAT THEY DISTORT

THE TRUTH

The article discusses the accusation that lawyers distort the truth for their own gain,
highlighting the conflict between a lawyer's duty to their client and their duty to the court
and the cause of justice. While it is true that a lawyer is paid to represent their client and win
the case, it is also their responsibility to ensure that they do not suppress or distort the truth.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in 1864, argued that a lawyer's duty is to reconcile their client's
interests with the interests of truth and justice, and that they must use the arms of a warrior
rather than an assassin in carrying out their client's interests. The article concludes that an
honest lawyer will always strive to maintain the integrity of the legal system and the pursuit
of justice, even when representing a client.

MOUTPIECE OF THE CLIENT

The article discusses the common accusation that lawyers distort the truth for their
own gain, which arises from the nature of their profession as paid advocates.
However, the author argues that an honest lawyer has a duty not only to their client
but also to the court and the cause of justice. They should never suppress or distort
the truth, but instead strive to reconcile their duty to their client with the eternal and
immutable interests of truth and justice.

The author explains that a barrister is only the mouthpiece of the client and should
not set themselves up as a judge of their client's case. They must put the case before
the jury, no matter how improbable or incredible it may seem. However, if the
barrister knows that their client is guilty before the trial starts, they should withdraw
from the case and ask the client to retain another advocate.

If the barrister learns during the trial that their client is guilty, they may have a duty
to stay in the case to avoid prejudicing their client. However, they must regulate their
conduct of the case by the higher duty not to be a party to a lie. The barrister must
not assert that their client is innocent or put them in the witness box to tell a lie.
Instead, they can only urge that the prosecution has not proved their case.

DUTY OF PROSECUTING COUNSEL

The duty of counsel is to present their client's case to the jury, without determining guilt or
innocence. Prosecuting counsel has a duty to present all relevant facts, including those that
may show the accused's innocence. If they know of a material witness with uncertain
credibility, they must inform the defense counsel and call the witness themselves if
necessary. The American Bar Association also requires this high standard, and withholding
facts or witnesses that could establish the accused's innocence is considered highly
reprehensible.

DUTY OF PROSECUTING COUNSEL

The article discusses the ethical duty of barristers to promote truth and justice in the
courtroom. Counsel must not suggest to witnesses what their evidence ought to be, and
must disclose all evidence, even if it hurts their own case. When points of law arise, Counsel
must inform the Court of cases in their favor as well as those against them. However, there
are fine lines, such as not disclosing the bad character of witnesses, and it is up to the other
side to cross-examine and destroy their credibility. The article provides examples of cases
where these ethical principles were put to the test.

THE THIRD CHARGE – THAT THEY RUN UP COSTS

The article addresses the charge that lawyers are more concerned with their fees than their
clients' interests. This charge has been made as early as 1386, and in the early 19th century,
Charles Dickens exposed the high costs and inefficiencies of legal procedures. Although
things have improved, there are still complaints about the cost of litigation, and a recent
committee tried to reduce the costs but failed. Lawyers argue that justice cannot be done
cheaply, and they advise their clients not to go to court unless necessary. There is also a
tradition that barristers must give their best to their clients without regard to private gain.
Legal aid has weakened this tradition, and it needs strong reinforcement. Overall, the article
suggests that while the legal profession may not be entirely blameless, lawyers do not advise
their clients to go to court unless necessary and that high costs of litigation are often
necessary to ensure justice.

THE FIRST VIRTUE – COMMAND OF LANGUAGE

In this passage, the author discusses what a good lawyer should do in presenting a case. The
first and most important thing is to have a command of the English language in order to
present the case clearly and strongly. It is important to state the point at issue and recount
the facts in a simple and orderly manner, while omitting unnecessary details. The author also
warns against becoming too emotional and picturesque in language, and emphasizes the
importance of attuning one's words to the tribunal before whom one appears. The author
provides examples of judges who have reprimanded lawyers for not presenting their cases
clearly or for being too emotional in their language

THE FIRST VIRTUE – COMMAND OF LANGUAGE

The second quality required to become a good lawyer is courage. A lawyer must defend their
client to the best of their ability, no matter how unpopular or difficult the task may be. They
must use every possible argument and loophole in the law to defend their client, even if it
goes against public opinion or their own personal beliefs. In criminal cases, the defense of
the accused must take priority over all other cases. This principle has been upheld
throughout history, with examples such as Thomas Erskine's defense of Tom Paine, even
though he did not approve of Paine's book. Despite facing criticism and losing his position
as Attorney General, Erskine's commitment to the principle that every accused person
deserves a fair defense was ultimately vindicated. This principle has been repeatedly applied
by lawyers throughout history, even in cases where the accused is particularly unpopular or
considered odious.