Clitheroekid wrote:Lootman wrote:Ask a solicitor how to dodge a summons and you will be advised not to. In fact you already saw such a response from our resident solicitor CK. Now I have a lot of respect for his knowledge. But I also recognise that as a lawyer his first duty is to the system that supports him and enables him to enjoy all that good food and those fine wines. He is not going to advise anyone to avoid a summons regardless. That could even put his license to practice law at risk.
This is a quaint, but hopelessly wrong interpretation of the lawyer's role.
A lawyer's first duty is not to `the system' (by which I assume you mean the State). It's to his client, who is, in criminal cases,
in direct conflict with the State.
If a lawyer's first duty was actually to the State it would mean that he could never defend someone accused of a criminal offence because of a conflict of interest.
Secondly, I'm pleased to say that I receive no support whatsoever from the State - if I were to be dependent on such support then I'm afraid there wouldn't be much good food, and fine wines would be in very short supply. Although I don't practise in criminal law I often represent people who are, one way or another, in conflict with the State.
I'm aware that we've had our hands slapped for straying from the subject, and I don't want to look as though I'm trying to have the last word, but I really couldn't let your comments go unchallenged.
That is fair enough. By "the system" I did not so much mean the State or the Government. But rather the legal system. That includes the courts of course, which are run by the government. But it is also about the professional body and code of conduct, the principles of the Law Society, and the power of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
As an example of the limits of advice a solicitor can give, the SRA has this to say:
We adhere to strict rules of law and ethics, and we cannot knowingly mislead the Court. If a client tells us that he or she has committed the offence in question, then we cannot allow him or her to give evidence of his or her innocence under oath otherwise we would be complicit in their perjury.
Likewise I doubt that I could get you to advise me on how to successfully lie under oath, how to hide my assets in a divorce or bankruptcy, or (getting back to the topic) how to dodge a valid summons. And certainly not on how to murder my wife and get away with it.
So yes, as you say, "A lawyer's first duty is . . . to his client". But then that is actually priority number 7 on this list of principles, again from the SRA:
1) in a way that upholds the constitutional principle of the rule of law, and the proper administration of justice.
2) in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.
3) with independence.
4) with honesty.
5) with integrity.
6) in a way that encourages equality, diversity and inclusion.
7) in the best interests of each client.
I am absolutely convinced that you give the highest standard of legal help. My point was limited to noting that you are governed by a code of conduct, and that others here or elsewhere are not. So you are more limited in what you can say than a non-lawyer would be.
Citations are from
https://www.sra.org.uk/PS: That said, and speaking of moderation, note this TLF rule: "Topics or posts which appear to incite or encourage an act that may be illegal, or advise in favour of a course of action which may be illegal, or any post which is in itself might be criminal or illegal, may be deleted without warning, and appropriate sanctions may be taken against posters of such material."