Ethical Dilemmas in Defending the Factually Guilty Client (original) (raw)

Though attorneys on both sides of the judicial equation have the professional duty to adhere to legal statutes, unanswered and unguided issues of professionalism and ethical practice surround defense lawyers daily. Utilizing the dyadic example of factual guilt vs. legal guilt, this paper addresses the ethical and professional implications of defending a factually guilty client. Lawyers who are certain of their client’s guilt confront inescapable ethical conflicts when the client insists on a vigorous defense and have little to guide them down the correct path. This paper utilizes examples of past cases, popular culture, and a recently tried case to display issues within the courtroom, ethical dilemmas, and the general importance of the defense attorney. Drawing from the conclusions of Supreme and Appellate court cases dealing with the value of an attorney willing to differentiate between legal and factual guilt, one conclusion can be drawn: sometimes we must sacrifice legal truth and/or a conviction in order to protect the important principles and unalienable rights of current and future defendants.