People imagine all sorts of terrible things about lawyers, as if they are unpredictable like toddlers. When people meet a lawyer, there is one standard question that 's asked, "Do you win all your cases?"
I wonder how many patients ask this of surgeons and doctors.
Do you want the truth when you ask that question or a reassurance of sorts? Maybe you just need to consider what winning means to you in the context of getting a lawyer to support your side of the story. If you want to win to destroy something, that's not winning, is it? If you want to win because injustice has been done to you, it is about creating trust in your version and through legal representation.
To me, winning is about creating trust between you and the lawyer, you and the opposite party and you persuading the judiciary that justice is on your side. When that happens, the win is that of justice, not of two warring lawyers as people tend to believe. To me, it's always about principles that you live by. Sometimes, it's important to win and make that your legacy of standing by what is just and fair.
8 comments:
wow...that is such a noble thought :)
You keep disappearing from blogging...I am loving the new look of your blog.Good to see you back :)
Hello and many thanks for visiting me over at Pen and Paper.
Good to hear the side of the professional, Ifound your comments interesting.
alike in victory n defeat, loss and gain...what say??
something coming from heart i suppose..
I think a lawyer's job is not unravelling the truth; it is about challenging the other side to do that!
Since the Arguments are based on principle (?) of denials, even a matter of common knowledge is put to strict proof!
THIS, IN MY OPINION IS CREATING UNDUE DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF CASES.
Most of the lawyers accept all the briefs, even if they are with the wrong side!
You seem to be exception.
@Lazy Pineapple: Thank you, I just write as thoughts come forward and it feels good to have your support. Yes, I too feel happier with this new look than the previous one.
@Petty: Thanks!
@R Ramesh: Yes, to a great extent, that's the only way to look at it, or else, there will be chaos.
@Tarun: Yes, definitely.
@Subu: Thank you. Truth is that I never take on a case that I have trouble believing in. Also, I would never mislead the judiciary by representing a case that is unfair and unjust at the start. It is a principle that my father taught me. I owe it to him really.
I have an intellectual question. Everybody has the right to have a lawyer in court. At least in USA. I am not familiar with India. I think India also has the same. In that case, if all the lawyers are "principled" and fight only for "justice", then who will represent terrorists and cold blooded murderers. Would like your views on that.
@SG - Good question, thanks.
Each to his own is the formula for every profession. Thankfully, there are many lawyers who are not as finicky as I am and there won't be a dearth of competent lawyers in giving representation to the cases you'd mentioned.
Post a Comment