Posts by Mrs Skin
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Stephen - as noted above by Angus, the lawyer pretty much has to act as instructed.
-
Emma: lawyers' obligations to their clients are quite defined. It's a heavily regulated industry. The line isn't actually all that subjective.
-
That post looked so much smaller when I was writing it.
-
OK my main point here, and one that I'm obviously not putting forward well, is that it is almost always wrong to personalise a lawyer's actions or statements.
A lawyer's role is quite different than the general public perception of it (and that's another issue).
A lawyer's role requires different ethics than those of a 'normal person'. Sometimes those ethics can be perceived as unsavoury, but they are necessary* under our current conception of a lawyer's role. The role is a result of our adversarial system.
Sometimes the 'problem' lies with the lawyer. One debated example is where they take the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law as a basis for their tactics - like using delay tactics to attempt to run the other party out of money in an attempt to force settlement.
From what's been said here (not having kept up with media reports), I don't see Comeskey as having stepped outside his ethical role. We don't have to like the defence he is running on behalf of his client, but to my mind the debate isn't about whether he should run it but whether the role of a lawyer, and the ethics (and so the defences) that spring from it, is right for our society.
*Everything is arguable.
-
even if it were all broadcast/streamed live but media were banned from reporting or rebroadcasting it'd be a better scenario.
Is that an issue with over-transparency or with reporting methods?
-
In that case you are quite right. (Though it's professional detachment that's required).
-
I trust the system as far as I can see it, which requires transparency. You know that saying, justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done? Yeah.
Eternal vigilance, etc.
-
Eddie: Hell yes. But I admire the people who do.
Mark: I doubt Comeskey is disingenuous in this matter but I don't think he's necessarily complicit either. I think he's probably acting as required by law - but the definitions of the actions required to fulfil the principles can vary.
-
why trials need to be held in the public domain. If this had been behind closed doors, it would have been a non issue.
eek!
-
Sorry, should have been clearer: the lawyer.
After I posted I realised that the client is probably in no position to be talking to the media. I haven't been reading the papers lately; I'm studying for a legal ethics exam.
Comeskey commented to direct to the media further about the defense case after the trial, instead of just saying "no comment" or commenting only generally.
My point is that it may not be his choice. His client may have instructed him on this element too.