Calgary police officer facing $3 million dollar lawsuit for sexual harrassment

[RinkRat]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

There are many lawyers that make a living never stepping in a courtroom, in fact I reckon they are the smart lawyers......

Oh without question, I'm simply saying you will find a lawyer for any particular case that comes up regardless of authenticity of a claim.

Any lawyer that does well without going near the cesspool that is the judiciary is probably on the ball.

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That is not the question you asked originally. You asked if a lawyer would take the case if they weren't convinced that the claim was legitimate. And the answer to that is yes. Look deep enough, and you will find a lawyer willing to take on anything. You likely won't find a good lawyer if the claim is completely unbelievable, but given the glut of lawyers (especially in the states), desperation and desire for a paycheque leads to bad decisions.

The fact that some people are occasionally foolish enough to try and represent themselves in such significant cases does not, in and of itself, constitute an argument that a lawyer could not be found.

Of course that's not the question I originally asked. I asked if a lawyer would take a case if they didn't believe it was legitimate and UB answered there's a lawyer for every case which is why I said there isn't always a lawyer. Unless he meant that a lawyer will take any case then I don't see the relevance in the answer.

Or maybe he's a lawyer I don't know. Kind of wanted to get the opinion of a lawyer. I think it's bad business to take on a case where you don't think you could win and a loss means no pay.

Which is why I tend to believe if the women had zero proof of harassment a lawyer wouldn't take the case. I believe she's being honest, the claims she's making shouldn't be hard to prove.

[pylon]

I once had a pretty high profile defense lawyer in my office, and we were having a pretty candid discussion. I had asked him "How can you defend someone who is obviously guilty?" And the jist of his answer was along these lines. "I am not there to determine if he is guilty or not, I am only there to argue the reasons that he may not be."

Also in many high profile cases where guilt is pretty much a given, their job is more to fight for a reduced sentence, based on factors. I am pretty sure a ton of defense lawyers go into it knowing it is about if they are guilty, it is about if their client is going to get the maximum sentence or not.

Maybe one of our resident lawyers can answer this, can you still defend a client that has admitted guilt to you, as non guilty? Or at that point can you only argue the circumstances? I believe I have heard that in many cases they will never ask the client point blank if they did it or not, so they can argue their client was never involved.

[troutman]

http://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/docs/def...e.pdf?sfvrsn=2

A lawyer’s duty to a client who seeks legal advice is to give the client a competent opinion based on
a sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts, an adequate consideration of the applicable law and the
lawyer’s own experience and expertise. The advice must be open and undisguised and must clearly
disclose what the lawyer honestly thinks about the merits and probable results.



Fraud by Client
2.02(10)
When acting for a client, a lawyer must not advise or assist a client to commit a
fraud, crime or illegal conduct, nor instruct the client on how to violate the law
and avoid punishment.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by pylon

I once had a pretty high profile defense lawyer in my office, and we were having a pretty candid discussion. I had asked him "How can you defend someone who is obviously guilty?" And the jist of his answer was along these lines. "I am not there to determine if he is guilty or not, I am only there to argue the reasons that he may not be."

Also in many high profile cases where guilt is pretty much a given, their job is more to fight for a reduced sentence, based on factors. I am pretty sure a ton of defense lawyers go into it knowing it is about if they are guilty, it is about if their client is going to get the maximum sentence or not.

Maybe one of our resident lawyers can answer this, can you still defend a client that has admitted guilt to you, as non guilty? Or at that point can you only argue the circumstances? I believe I have heard that in many cases they will never ask the client point blank if they did it or not, so they can argue their client was never involved.

I think we are crossing up to discussions here.

Criminal v Civil

Currently, there is a Civil suit filed.

I get your point Pylon, but terms like guilt I believe are saved for Criminal matters.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

There are many lawyers that make a living never stepping in a courtroom, in fact I reckon they are the smart lawyers......

[442scotty]

This should be an interesting case to follow. Not saying he is guilty or not. Like everyone else in society there will always be the odd bad cop. I sit back and chuckle when , despite all the modern hiring checks and balances and hoops to jump through, bad cops still get through to the street. I wont bore you with a "now in my day..." speech....

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by terminator

lol........ man what is the police upto these days? Its nearly as if we need police for the police for the police of the people.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

There are many lawyers that make a living never stepping in a courtroom, in fact I reckon they are the smart lawyers......

Glad I'm not one of them. I stepped into a courtroom 5 years ago to fight a u-turn ticket that an uninformed police officer gave me. Victory!

Undefeated in court. How many lawyers can say that!!!

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

Of course that's not the question I originally asked. I asked if a lawyer would take a case if they didn't believe it was legitimate and UB answered there's a lawyer for every case which is why I said there isn't always a lawyer. Unless he meant that a lawyer will take any case then I don't see the relevance in the answer.

He said there's a lawyer for every case, as in there is at least one lawyer that will take every single case. He didn't say that every case needs a lawyer. He simply said that for every case that is out there, one or more lawyers would accept it, no matter what the circumstances. Whether the client wants a lawyer has nothing to do with your question.