THE LAWYER'S CONSCIENCE.

Northern Advocate, 31 March 1888, Page 2

THE LAWYER'S CONSCIENCE.

TnE question whether a lawyer can properly undertake what he knows to be a bad "cause, is an old one. The Eev. Dr. Bartol, in a thoughtful article on " Bribery and its near relatives" in the current " Forum,' takes the ground that for a lawyer, who, being an officer of the court, is a minister of the law, to take money to advance a cause he knows to be undeserving, is to accept a bribe, and raises the question whether a lawyer who receives a retaining fee which is obviously given simply to prevent his being engaged by the other side has not come dangerously near the same offence, especially if there is any reason to suspect injustice on the side that is so anxious to silence him. Scruples of this kind are likely to seem fantastic at this day, when apparently, the body of the profession considers almost any fee legitimate, provided it is big enough;

and even on the older question as to whether a lawyer is to take and push a case whether it be good or bad, even lawyers of admittedly high character would not al way agree with Dr Bartol. He admits that he was not able to convince so upright a judge as Cbief Justice iShaw, who went so far as to hold that " contending counsellors should do their best to represent or misrepresent, they having naught to do with absolute equity or truth. 1 ' In opposition to this can be produced the declaration of a still more eminent authority, the late Chief Justice Chase, that " lawyers are not bound to tell any lies," to which he added that if he were engaged in defending a man for crime, and became convinced by indisputable evidence, such as the client's confession, that he was guilty, he should withdraw from the case. Probably to most lawyers this will seem an extravagantly high standard of professional conduct, and it would probably be attacked also on the ground that such a course would tend to give the law an unfair advantage over the criminal, who is supposed to be innocent until other testimony than his own has proved him guilty, and who is expressly protected against criminating himself. It happens far more frequently, moreover, than the public realizes that lawyers believe in their cases. The authority just quoted once said that in the whole course of his practice he had but one case in the law of which he did not sincerely believe* The court decided in his favour, and years afterwards he came to the conclusion that he and the court had been right, and his secret doubts were mistaken. Extravagantly high standards of pro* fessional conduct would work far less harm, however, than standards extravagantly low, which are altogether top> common nowadays. These are not confined to the Tombs shyster and the criminal jury lawyer. They do a great deal of mischief, it is true, but it is limited in its effect. A far more serious, evil is the lack of honour to be seen in some, too many, of the more distinguished members of the profession. The will of the people as expressed in legislation is to be evaded. There is always a lawyer in high standing ready to invent a way to do it for a big fee. A corporation or an individual wants to escape paying a righteous debt. There is no difficulty about finding the legal loopehole, if there is no difficulty about the lawyer's share of the proceeds. A railroad is to be stolen, or a corrupt job is to be rushed through a legislative body. There is no lack of lawyers in high standing to contrive and furnish every part of the necessary legal machinery. Sometimes these transactions come dangerously near the limits of the law. But the lawyers who take part in them do not seem to suffer in professional standing. At least they are seldom, if ever, brought up for discipline before the bar associations. The result is a debauching of the professional conscience — a loss of popular faith in the administration of justice. Is this downward tendency to continue ? Is the time never to come when it will be understood that a lawyer cannot render even a technical service in a corrupt transaction without sharing the odium of it, and having to answer before the tribunals of the profession ? — N.T. Tribune.