Is it okay if a lawyer is a fraud if they have good intentions and get results for innocent people?

[HawkPerception]

Yes

No

[strateguy632]

i am very cynical about this issue and wining court cases is not likely by ethics it is about the skill of the game! when i hired lawyers for secret reasons *thair strategies were very unexpected and seemed to be unethical but as long as they know the rules, i wanted to win!
i even claim that the proffession was named "lawyer" to lessen the deception about being a proffessional "liar" so tell the client "i will be your liar" pronounced lawyer to lessen the deception and not clearly but admitting what they plan to do.

this was dramatized in the film "intolerable cruelty" i loved the line, she: i shot him with his gun" so lawyer replied 'no worry we will get your gun back to you" R. O. F. L. i loved that scene!

[OlderAndWiser]

MOST lawyers take their ethical obligations quite seriously, and we have an obligation of candor towards the tribunal. If a client wants to commit perjury and we know that the testimony will be false, we have an obligation to try to convince the client to testify truthfully, or to withdraw from representing the client.

I have withdrawn from 5 or 6 cases over the last 38 years because of that issue.

[OlderAndWiser]

Thanks for MHO!

[HawkPerception]

Helps that you have a lawyer perspective 😂

[OlderAndWiser]

Yes, but most people would rather believe the jokes they hear on late night TV.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I'm not a big fan of lawyers but I think it violates their professional ethics if they're fraudulent even with benevolent intentions. Their professional ethics should take priority over their personal ethics unless they're in total violation with each other, in which case the ethical solution to me is to quit.

This reminds me of a quote from Computer Ethics:

>> “It should be noted that no ethically -trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter.” -- Nathaniel Borenstein

😂

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

The problem to me is that if we condone cheating the system under any circumstance, then we leave it free for anyone to cheat the system based on their subjective criteria. That's inviting total chaos. So we have to be intolerant to cheating in all forms as I see it and not allow such exceptions to the rules when the whole integrity of the system is at stake.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

If we can precisely describe the exceptional conditions under which one or more rules can be ignored, then it's no longer a violation of rules (no longer cheating/fraudulent).

[ProbablyClueless]

Oh lord no. It's not even slightly okay.

I think that if someone told me, any of my colleagues, or even anyone I would want to work with that they were involved in the flagrant, unauthorized practice of law; the collective laying of eggs would put Chicken farmers across America out of business.

Every legal professional I've ever known takes their ethics extremely seriously.

[Fireguy17]

someone pretending that they are a lawyer is wrong, and when they get found out it can be entirely possible that the courts may go and review all of the previous cases, and there is the possibility that they would have to reopen them causing all of those innocent people to now have to get another real attourny and go through the process once again.

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

You’re really invested in Suits, aren’t you.

[HawkPerception]

Best show. Currently binge watching it for the 5th time 😁

[NathanDavis]

that's just Law in general no?

the concepts of good and bad kind of take a seat on the side...

[OlderAndWiser]

No. That's not the way it really works. That's just what you hear on late night TV programs or on sensationalistic media sources.

[NathanDavis]

@OlderAndWiser once certain law is settled... it can become subjective, and it is subjective based on morality

and we all know which one is the most subjective of all

for some people it is good or bad, wrong or right... depending on your leaning and perspective

and this is just one example of how the "law" in general is open to interpretation, in fact... nowadays more than ever, we do leave a lot of these decisions of wrong and right, good or bad, to be interpreted by a few selected ones up there in the highest court, do we not...

[NathanDavis]

now... the idea that all lawyers are all honest...

that's not open to discussion

[OlderAndWiser]

All laws have some ambiguity once you try to apply them. That is true of any set of rules, code of conduct, or other similar governing principles.

I have been practicing law for 38 years. I have known a FEW dishonest lawyers. Most have been very ethical. . . but the MSM doesn't carry stories about honest lawyers doing good things.

[NathanDavis]

@OlderAndWiser and then we have all those lobbyists and lawyers, protecting and defending unethical causes... and unfair practices

of which many are morally wrong and bad (quite awful too) but from a legal perspective, they are, well... legal

[OlderAndWiser]

I won't continue responding, but not because I agree with your position. You are confusing two different issues and I have had a long day.

[NathanDavis]

@OlderAndWiser every law you do not agree with... or does not align with your beliefs

becomes a bad and wrong one, as simple as that... there's no complication to it

[BoopBoopBeep]

I can give you a tracheotomy if you need one but I bet you'd rather go to a surgeon.

[Snakeyes7]

Why would they be a fraud if they are actually doing something for the benefit of the people like they are supposed to be doing.

[OddBeMe]

“Fraud” lawyer would mean he doesn’t have a license, or screw you over money-wise.

[jimmy2]

We see one like that on the guy who let three friends froze in back yard

[laly520]

thats how it mostly works under the table

[legalboxers]

-blinks- wha?