Lawyer who are greedy would represent a criminal in the guise of doing their job. It's all for the money, Lot's of lawyer would turn down such clients, so sometimes police just shoot then to save tax payers money, This maybe a harsh statements but these kinds of criminal are out there wanting to hurt innocent people just to satisfy their crazy heads.
Permalink | Report

Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to have an attorney represent them. If they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them. If it were not for private criminal defense attorneys and public defenders, then no criminal could be convicted. These attorneys play a vital role in the criminal justice system. It is an insult to most defense attorneys to suggest they might be in it solely for the money or for fame. Certainly public defenders are not there for the money. The high-profile cases, such as O.J. Simpson and his "Dream Team," represent a minority of criminal prosecutions.

People are quick to put down attorneys who represent criminal defendants for a variety of reasons. But, if you were arrested and charged, justly or unjustly, with a crime........Who would you call first?
Source(s):
The Role of a Prosecutor and Criminal Defense Attorney http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/the-role-of-a-prosecutor-and-criminal-...
Ethics, Zealous Advocacy, and the Criminal Defense Attorneyhttp://www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/winter2001/bennett/
Marriott Drops Blame-the-Victim Defense in Suit Over Parking-Garage Rape http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/08/marriott_drops_blamethevi...

Permalink | Report

Please allow me to comment. I am an attorney so I may provide a different insight than currently given.

First of all, not all attorneys are greedy--it is quite often that capital murder case defendants are represented by Public Defenders until the public scrutiny gets too large and the PD is literally incapable of assisting the defendant to his/her best ability.

Yes, money plays a role. Just like any job, compensation is required. It can be argued that in an open-and-shut case an attorney requires even more compensation than usual, as he or she really must use imagination to provide the best service to his client. But compensation is not an end-all; attorneys are always officers of the court who cannot (should not) cut corners or engage in unethical behavior. (I will table dissension to this point as I am all too aware of how often this line between zealous and unethical representation gets crossed).

Other attorneys go for a challenge. It is literally a "David v. Goliath" story for them, and if they are able to prevail against all odds, they are justified in their behavior. No matter the hate and animosity towards such attorneys, but when you are in trouble, that is the first type of an attorney you typically call to bail you out, as you know they can get the job done, regardless of true statistical improbability.

Fame is also a big deal. Our culture no longer makes a distinction between "good" and "bad" publicity. ALL is good. So if an attorney associates himself with a high profile case, potential clients will hear of him and find him when needed.

Others go because they are assigned to go--the Public Defender I described above.

Finally, many have the genuine belief that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than place 1 innocent person in prison. These individuals believe in the ideal that all men, guilty or otherwise, require competent and fair legal representation. Regardless of possible apparent guilt, all accused are innocent until proven guilty and must stay innocent at all costs.

As with any decisions it can be a combination of factors. I personally avoid court and tend to do more transactional matters as I was very vehement and idealistic about not representing someone who I knew to be guilty (that is why I do not practice criminal law, for example). As time goes on, however, I have modified my thinking and see my profession as a service that may not require my personal beliefs, ego, judgments, or prejudice to properly represent and serve my clients. This intentional "setting aside" of my internal beliefs allows me to perform my representation that much more competently, as my response is not tainted by internal coloration. Only after my work is done do I reflect and review the possible moral dilemmas, and those of my professional contacts that work in litigation tend to do the same.

Maybe that makes the stereotypes true; that is possible and probable. But it is also fact.
Source(s):
Personal experience.
I am an attorney who runs his own practice.

Permalink | Report