I can say unequivocally this is not necessarily true, regarding the pay. But this also depends where you are in your company (associate v senior partner). Also, most who retain a criminal defense lawyer are like any other person looking for a service. They more than likely are shopping around, asking rates and prices etc. Once a decision is made to choose a particular lawyer/firm, the senior/named partners decide who will take that case. Yes, a high profile case like this, would probably go to a senior partner. However, associates and anybody under help pick up the slack. Unless you are a senior partner, or senior associate, you are more than likely working for under '6 figures'.
My source? My best friend is a criminal defense lawyer in Calgary for a well known firm. His reason for being a criminal lawyer instead of practicing in another stream? He believes that no matter how guilty someone is, everybody in this society deserves to be represented and defended. Do clients come right out and tell him they are guilty? Not necessarily. However in order to properly represent them, the truth does eventually come out, and his job is to help his client understand the legal system, and help him/her not be unfairly represented.
As someone else posted here, if there were no defense lawyers, the police/investigators would pick up the evidence, the Crown would convict and sentence, and this would all be done with just one side's opinion. The court system is one of the fundamental pillars our society is built on.
While I'm not saying this guy deserves anything less than a life sentence (which I believe in Canada is still a joke), he does deserve to be represented and guided through the legal processes our country is built on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by united
The six-figure payday is probably motivating, also.
I think one of the reasons many people who aren't in the law business are hostile toward defence lawyers is the Hollywood portrayal of defence lawyers badgering, humiliating, and insulting accusers beyond what they deem to be reasonable - as seen in many shows.
The other reason is when the public sees a case against a career criminal with a plethora of evidence against he/she completely thrown out because of a minor infraction (in the minds of the public) by the Police, it is hard to swallow. Many see the headlines of significant evidence being ruled as ineligible because of a seemingly minor procedural mistake and it leaves a bad taste in their mouths - should a significant case be completely dismissed because of a seemingly insignificant error? Some would argue a minor mistake should not excuse a major crime entirely, but perhaps lessen it to a minor degree. A difficult debate, but many defence lawyers seem to brag about their past conquests of having cases tossed based on the most minor of errors, again leading to the bitterness toward them by the general public - how can one brag about such a thing?
|