Can we say legal profession encompasses politics in it or the other way lawyer and politicians are intermingled word?

My opinion regarding this proposition that way back to ages we can realize that whatever be the position of law maker either we call the them saints , law giver or politicians / member of legislative body in modern term, they were very much prominent and effective in the arena of politics. We can experience this through in the pages of history be it ancient, medieval or modern period . Sumit Kishore The Legal Profession and the Politics, in my opinion are bound by the situations and circumstances to be sometimes called intermingled or interlinked and at times way too aloof of each other. The objective criteria behind the working of both, the profession as well as the politics change with the underlying objective of the respective professionals and the politicians. If in a particular situation, a politician is trying to profess his ulterior motives of getting a legislation or law tabled for the democracy, he might not have the same objective behind the other legislation which originate from his/her rivals or opposition. Thus, its safe to keep both the terms apart.

i would like to quote a recent example where ram jethmalani was fighting the 2G scam case.Lawyer like him have made a mockery out of the political system that we have. for them it's all about opportunism. it's alright if they speak in two different voices in two different places. it is not "double speak", but when the politicians do the same they are said to be hypocrites. in my view lawyers should not become politicians. if they do, then they should not embarrass their parties,and the entire political system that exists. in public life ethics matter.
I believe that yes, legal profession and politics are intermingled but to some extent in more of a positive way. If one consider pages from the past, he will witness that there were certain legal luminaries such as Gandhi, Lenin, etc. who joined politics just to make a difference, perhaps because they see politics as the only way to change particular law which has become obsolete or which is more of an arbitrary law or because they become acutely aware of issues of justice and equality and would like to make a difference on a larger scale.

2. please consider a situation, where you are a criminal defense attorney.Your client is charged with double murder.You have a duty to protect your client and defend him in the best possible manner.You made a strong case and have good chance of an acquittal.By the end of the case, just before the verdict your client confesses to you that he had committed those murders purposely.As an officer of the court,you have an obligation to bring it to the notice of the Judge but as a lawyer who values professional ethics,you are bound to keep the lawyer-client communication confidential.Also,not to forget that the client enjoys lawyer-client communication privilege.

As lawyers,should we take the burden of letting the man free( assuming he is acquitted) and send him back to the streets to commit some more crimes as we value our professional ethics above everything.

As a part of nobel profession, a lawyer is required to manifest conduct that is an example of humanity, respect, human dignity and efforts in recognizing and accomplishing basic human rights and freedoms. Generally, he shall protect the interests of clients, using only the means that are in accordance with the law, dignity of the legal profession, customs and which are not contrary to his own conscience. But it is only when we talk about the defense lawyers or the ones who are knowingly assisting a criminal, that all these stand the actual test of time. In this case lawyer has to perform all his duties in such a manner that none is conflicting/derogatory to another, i.e., in fulfilling his professional responsibilities, he shall behave in such a way as to gain and maintain the trust of the client along with that of judicial and other bodies that he appears before. When facing such a situation, a lawyer shall not turn the pages of Professional Ethics book or the Bar Council Rules & Regulations. But instead his stand shall be determined completely on his state of mind. Ethics is not sumthing that can be taught or rembered, but is innate in ones personality. A lawyer can withdraw from defending a case if his concise does not allow him to carry a particular task. However, it is important to understand that its not always possible to drop the case inbetween or disclose the confidential information provided, there are other considerations also. (Like delegated assignment, important Client, advocate appointed by court, etc.) Not every lawyer has the option of choosing a more favorable path. Moreover, a Criminal has to be defended as a matter of procedure, whether or not a particular lawyer defends him or not. Somebody shall defend him, and its not justified to determine the Advocates character or morals depending upon the client he defends, nor will it make this profession any less ethical/nobel. It is therefore important for us to realise that its a part of our JOB!!! And the situation will demand from us to act more PRACTICALLY then ETHICALLY. @sakshi- irrespective of one's Concise, such a client is to be defended, and therefore should be defended. Now, it is upto us whether we get the client acquitted or charged under a lesser degree offence. All that a defense lawyer in this case can hope for is the prosecution to come out with a better case. ;) In this particular hypothesis where lawyer has two conflicting situation, I can opine that my decision would be very clear to serve the end of Justice. As in above hypothesis it raised that lawyer and client share a privilege communication relationship but every law has to pass reasonableness clause. Even the lawyer client relationship has to be reasonable and rational. Somebody can opine that its very easy to say theoretically that lawyer will take side of justice not with

the client and thats where the real test of a person as a lawyer lies. Can that particular lawyer go with his business of layering or he sub serve the end of justice. i wud lyk 2 point out that its really easy to state what the noble lawyer should have done.(majority of the bloggers would agree upon the lawyer not taking up the case.) but its easier in theory than in practise. the lawyer, upon taking up the case, is obliged to draw a line between valuing professional ethics and honouring lawyer-client relationship. What about the condition where a novice lawyer who urgently needs to be rich.. would such ethical points ever cross his mind. i beg to differ.. however, who r we 2 determine whther such a client wud walk free.. dre r metaphysical objects(Courts) whose judgment wud be binding upon both the parties.so instead upon worrying upon his walking scot-free, he shud trust the judicial system and fulfill his commitment towards defending his client.
- Show quoted text -

3. Is theft the only sin

"There is only one sin, only one. And that is theft. Every other sin is a variation of theft... When you kill a man, you steal a life. You steal his wife's right to a husband, rob his children of a father. When you tell a lie, you steal someone's right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness... There is no act more wretched than stealing"

An honest person who steals because he himself, or his family, is starving. So it is not necessarily "bad," or "wrong," It is the circumstances which lead the person to do such an act. He is compelled to take such a step to steal food, for survival. Killing a person is an heinous act but harming a person for self protection is a defence to protect self life Unlike other topics in this blog, what this topic has to do with professional ethics or any other related components of the course in order that it has made an appearance in this course blog? Or is it that this topic is being related to professional ethics, e.g., plagiarism/stealing by law professionals ... If that is the case such an intention should have been sufficiently made clear by the initiator of this topic.

There is Only One Sin

There is only one sin, only one. And that is theft. Every other sin is a variation of theft. Do you understand that? When you kill a man, you steal a life. You steal his wifes right to a husband, rob his children of a father. When you tell a lie, you steal someones right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness. Do you see?

This is one of many lessons learned by the protagonist in KhaledHosseinis novel, The Kite Runner. My mind often wonders back to that book, and to this quote in particular. I question the validity of this assertion, of boiling the entire worlds injustice down to one fundamental wrong. And, most days, I find reason to agree. Sister Martha came to my door today and told me that a lady would come by the monastery looking for Layla, one of the girls who lives here. She carefully explained that I should tell the woman that Layla was in the church in Jerusalem and wouldnt be back for days. In essence, a nun asked me to lie. My surprise must have been transparent, because she told me that I would understand her request when I understood the girls life outside the monastery walls. Layla, a pretty little girl who makes good grades and loves to draw, seems like most other eight year olds. Now that I know what her life has been like, I marvel at her normalcy. She is smiling every time I see her. I would never have guessed that her childhood has been stolen from her. Since she was an infant, Layla has endured physical and emotional abuse at the hands of her father. She has suffered burns from being put into a hot oven, a broken nose courtesy of her fathers angry fist, and routine beatings that left her small body covered with bruises. Relief should have come when the man abandoned his family for another woman, who bore him the son he wanted Layla to be. But things just got worse. Her mother is a prostitute, but her graver fault is cowardice. Her cowardice and blind familial loyalty have stolen her daughters innocence. The womans brother first sexually abused Layla when she was six. The mother refused to believe the childs accusations, even though medical exams and her behavior were clear indicators of abuse. After essentially paying the father to sign over his custodial rights, Sister Martha took Layla away for treatment for several months and the girl finally achieved a sense of security and normalcy. Unfortunately, she is still legally bound to the mother, who often sends her to her uncles house while she works. Of course, these visits launch the girl into psychological and physical seclusion yet again. Thus, I have joined the nuns in a game of hiding and lying. As far as the childs family is concerned, school never ends. And when it does, Layla miraculously ends up in Russia for the summer before anyone has time to object (this is actually legal, thanks to the fathers avarice and/or lack of concern). The mothers protests are usually silenced with a negligible amount of money. I suppose lying and paying people off are sins, things one would least expect from nuns.Yet, it is as Sister Martha says, every lie she tells she does so with a clear conscious, knowing that she is giving a young girl back a portion of what has been taken from her.

4. The Tragic Motivation: There is sublimitya sense of the supernalin offering others what life has not offered one when it was needed

most. Scene 1: A man, he was deprived of learning the art of social selfbecoming. Wandered did heplaces, peoples, cultures In the end, he did find glowing inside him what he sought outside, the super-self. Scene 2: The joy of knowing the art of knowing oneself is too sweet and irresistible not to be shared. He did gather them (rather they were made to gather around him) offered them a talismanurged them to do a collective appraisal of accumulated knowledge against values inherently human/humane: Oh rational ones, thou shall pass the selftest of world-worthiness. Scene 3: Senseth he, stones in those tightened fists, waiting to be pelted on him and what is this the clamor it is coming closer yes he can hear You self-styled idealist we abhor your romantic utopiago and live in your idyllic poverty. The curtain falls and we hear a mendicant crooning Chunghoos lines ... where have all your probing Socrateses gone to? The bubbly quest for life that is so infectious everybody is drawn to your enthusiasm to take a fresh view of themselves giving themselves new angle to breathe life, for truths, for the realities behind every written word where has the diamond in you gone to? the character that makes you shine in so many facets Sreejith The Malaysian poet john tiong chunghoo here wants to question the human nature by the help of Socrates life. Here he says the quest which we have for the life and by stating the diamond he says the soul . The interpretation of the poem can that we see the life from the many circumference and we should recognize the soul to help build our character Beyond the Poets insightful verse and the wisdom it passes on, the post has much more to it, much more for a student of ethics to realize and sympathize with. It is the lament of an ethics teacher, his care for his listeners, his pain, his despair As you are blinded by the splendor of a verse, addressees of ethics are likely to be blinded by the splendor of worldly discourses. Speaking ethics to a materially-cut audience is as if standing in the middle of an inwardly spreading fire-ring.

As a student of ethics what i could absorb as the essence of the poem is that like those three varied scenes we will be facing different scenarios, varied situations in our professional life and yes as a novice we may get affected by it. But the important part is that even amongst all this we should not forget that peculiar individual within us somewhere, who is ever willing to breath a new life full of ideas, enthusiastic who is never afraid to search for truth, who wants to unearth those realities which will help bring him closer to truth, who have faith in logic the logic which makes realities get in sync with truth. Every facet of life is so full of challenges and it is up to us how well we take up those challenges. For me i truly hope that down the line even with all the worldly disclosure exposed in front of me, i don't loose touch with my diamond( i.e my inner intellectual self) which make me shine in each and every character life throws at my way to play. The three scenes are sequential. He sought and got (what ought to have been found). He taught and taught (what he thought ought to have been taught). He was caught and taught (a lesson for what ought not to have been taught). Apropos of the poemaint this sequence typical to the lives of ethics teachers? In my views, poet in the particular poem want to arouse the quest, which though is present with in us but for some reason has become dormant or suppressed due to some unknowing reason,and which is the most precious emotions within us, which helps us to know others & most important helps us to know our self. Ethical Judgement is innate to every human beings. The rationality of what is right and what is wrong belongs to the person. However, ethics can be perceived differently for a certain subject and if they are not agreeable with the society or people of certain class, this leads to clashes. This is the quandary for every person whether to follow their own personal set of judgement or to follow the norms of the society

4. To summarize the main arguments in todays class: It was the idea of justicean intellectual singularitythat helped us provide meaning to the professional functions of a lawyer who, in her own judgment, has a wrong case in her hand. Justice (the transcendence) being the end and lawyer being the seeker of this end, the lawyer would experience an intellectual beauty in performing her functions. She is [rationally] dispassionatethe deep sense of intellectuality (irrespective of the nature of the case in her hand) which only intensifies as she finds the end/justice getting served. By this thought-experiment we get to see that qualities of the end (Justice) determined the nature of the means (profession). Moreover, given that human beings are innately a meta-beings (those with transcendental roots) (Dasein-like), showing a transcendental goal drives their urge to realize the end/justice/transcendence. Profession here serves the purpose of a vehicle that takes the meta-being to a meta-end.

Now lets replace justice, the metaphysical giant, with a social version of justice (maximum happiness for maximum number). In that case, the nature of the professionthe means to the endwill also be determined by the social version of justice. It is likely that the rational dispassionateness induced by the transcendental versions of justice will give way to professional/social activism. At this point we have a) a social-goal, b) a profession that has all the social values instilled in it by the social goal and, c) an innately meta-being (the lawyer). This meta-being (that has a transcendental gene) when traverses the socially set path of professional functions, it is certain to experience friction, what we call professional discontents. I will be glad only to answer any questions in this regard through the blog and in the class if there would be one. 5.) One question that was raised today: Is it ethical for a lawyer to open the confidential folder (pertaining to his client) of a past case yet again? Let me make the issue/question tad doctrinal/theoretical (for the sake of discussion). To start with, the Preamble of the BCI Rules requires the lawyer to fearlessly uphold the interest of his [sic] client (see also Ch. II, Para 15). This loyalty to the client is regardless of any unpleasant consequences to himself or any other. (Id.). The question is: Would any other include a former client? Professional codes seldom define a client and even if they define, do not clarify whether former client falls under the statutory definition of a client. If former client is not a client, then it follows that lawyer-client relationship is temporally defined, so would be the loyalty to the client. Then again, if former client is a client, then lawyer would find him/herself in a messy whirlpool of ethical considerations: to be loyal to whom -- the former or the present? On behalf of the attorney my opinion will be to open the whatsoever secret of the previous client to protect the present client from clutches of the law . Its not because I am breaching the rule of privileged communication between attorney and client but its factual position that the present client is not guilty and this I will not to do enrich my professional value but to uphold the idea of justice. If I have understand the jay question that is it ethical or morally right for the attorney to open the confidential information of the previous client to protect the present. if the situation is just the opposite that the former client is imprisoned and the information of the present client can save the previous client from the clutches of the law then also I have the same argument as stated above. In my opinion and believe that breach of

the privileged communication between the present client and the attorney is saving the earlier client and its not only the duty of attorney but also to protect the idea of justice . Susan P. Shapiro in her book Tangled Loyalties addresses the issue whether lawyers loyalty to their client is temporal or not? She even raises the probability of a prospective clientwho might have divulged secrets in return for a legal advicebinding the lawyer in the silk thread of loyalty. Shapiro points out that if we are brave enough to reject temporality as a determinant of lawyer-client relationship, then we must accept the fact that past (forgotten), present, and future clients are clients. In this situation, what if if we take into account the dynamic and diversified nature of lawyers careers? Shapiro succinctly captures the dilemma: As lawyers navigate through the job market, passing in and out of revolving doors and from firm to firm, they accumulate weightier and weightier baggage [of loyalty]. Do these tangling, widening loyalties tell us that loyalty in lawyerclient relationship is collective? In that case loyalty should be towards the profession than to individual clients? See Susan P. Shapiro, Tangled Loyalties: Conflict of Interest in Legal Practice (Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2002) 5.) . In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so Immanuel Kant Here goes a modernist fallacy, a positivist credo (You too Kant !) law is different from ethics/morals. If law seeks compliance, it has to address the morality. Why law is the chosen oneas if law is the child of God, the quintessence of virtueto address the complex moralities in individuals? I would say it is for the reason that law and morality have the same linguistic-texture. law n morality are linked with each other but till what extent is the question to ponder upon. Morality or Morales of an individual comes from the society he/she lives in and a lawyer cannot afford to let those morale or the social norms to prevail over his rational thoughts. A line has to be drawn but when n where it has to be decided by the professional himself. In my opinion norms change as the society undergoes growth or change hence to give unnecessary importance to those social norms and morales is not a smart act. I wonder if all the lawyers start giving priority to the social norms , values and Morales then who would have taken the case of "Naaz foundation for homosexuality which now is termed as a landmark not only in Indian judicial set up but even in social setup. Morality also changes from society to society and obviously there is always that one catalyst which does change the social norms from time to time as well. Social norm is what is widely followed by the maximum, and I believe when a practice (moral or immoral) tends to grow, the general perception of the society towards the practice also changes, and what classifies as immoral might turn into 'acceptable social behavior'. Hence perhaps changing the

existing view of the general public, which would include lawyers as well perhaps, and subsequently legislators. I think a suited example of this would be 'marijuana' or 'euthanasia' or 'prostitution' regarded as highly immoral by most of the societies but legalized in the Netherlands primarily because of its wide 'acceptable' view by the society. Taking the law to the Age of Blackstone on morality and Law. Now think about morality in the age of Social Engineering and Globalisation. True Law has philosophical contents. But it is not law .It is a mix of disciplines based on moral values.

Morality, Ethics, and Law: They arent what the West has made us believe. Morality is the idealthe transcendence. It is singular, non-dual. Ethics is the ideal-idealized. It is helps in human self-creating. Law is the ideal-socialized. It helps in human self-perfecting. Morality, Ethics, and Law: They, and their interaction, help us self-evolve.
First off, morality does not come from the society (re: class discussions 15/9). Morals are derivates of the intellectual-ideal. They dwell in cognition, waiting to be idealized and socialized. What you believe/describe as morals are social values. It is certainly true that reason can eclipse [wrong] social values. Onto the stance of Naz Foundation: They are/were not against any morals, not were/are they immoral. They were only against a social/ legal evilcriminalization of homosexuality. They stood against that evil having driven by the moral element of compassion and the legal/ ideological element of freedom/individualism. Do not try to present their legal/social consciousness as a revolution against morals. Such viewpoints tend to give negative impressions about the human progress and set in negative patterns of thought.