In your opinion, should a lawyer pursue justice or win a lawsuit?

In your opinion, should a lawyer pursue justice or win a lawsuit? I think that a lawyer's defense should be the pursuit of winning a lawsuit, which is also the professional ethics of a lawyer, because the professional ethics of a lawyer is to protect the interests of the client. If a lawyer pursues justice, then the lawyer should be a police officer instead of a lawyer, and to be a lawyer is to have the professional ethics of a lawyer.

Professional ethicsEvery lawyer has professional ethics, and every profession also has professional ethicsThe professional ethics of lawyers, then it is to protect the interests of the parties, whether the parties themselves are good or bad, whether the parties are a bad person or a good person, they must protect the parties, and do not lose this lawsuit because the parties are a bad person, because once you take over this lawsuit, then it means that you have to protect the interests of the parties, whether the parties are good or bad, should protect his own interests and open up his guilt for the client, because this is the most basic professional ethics of a lawyer, and it is the professional ethics of a lawyer to protect the interests of the client. <>

For lawyers, professional ethics is the highest for every lawyer, professional ethics is the rules they abide by, they will not lose this lawsuit for justice, they can do whatever it takes to win, they can use any means, they will not win this lawsuit because of disputes, because they are lawyers, they have their professional ethics to chase the ball, their professional ethics is to protect the interests of the client, they only need to protect the interests of the client, not to pursue justice, In order to win the lawsuit, they can use all means. <>

In general, a lawyer as the most basic requirement, then is to protect the interests of the client, they can use all means to pursue this Guanyin, but in order to pursue combat power, there are also some lawyers who pursue justice, often these lawyers are basically rejected by the lawyer industry, because the most basic requirement of a lawyer is to protect the client by all means to protect the interests of the client, this is the most basic requirement of a lawyer, the lawyer who can do this requirement, then, will be recognized by these lawyer peers, if you can't do this, you will be rejected by the lawyer profession, so in my opinion, lawyers should chase Guanyin, instead of pursuing justice.

In my opinion, it is the pursuit of justice, so that he can play his true value, if it is just to win the lawsuit, their conscience will not be able to pass.

In my opinion, they should pursue the lawsuit and win it. They also have to respect their work. Their work is great, and it is their constant discovery of flaws in the law that will make our laws more perfect.

I think there should be a pursuit of justice, but of course it will be very difficult in the process, because the two are contradictory in many cases.

To win a lawsuit, as a lawyer, the most important thing is to let your side win, which is their ultimate goal.

It depends on what kind of person to defend or what kind of case to defend against, most lawyers are in pursuit of justice, but there are also some people out of their own selfishness, or just to improve their own popularity, lust for profit, reversing black and white, this is just a very rare phenomenon.

Are all lawyers defending justice?Not necessarily. Explanation (1) Law, like other social sciences, is significantly different from the natural sciences, namely:

Not every question has a single correct answer. Many things in life do not necessarily have a standard and definite answer. (2) The core content of the discipline of law is the choice of value, and even two values that need to be protected by law, and when there is a conflict, the law must decide which value needs to be protected more.

Different people's understanding of the law may be different, not a question of who is right and who is wrong, but which value needs the protection of the law more at this historical point in time. (3) Lawyers do not necessarily defend disputes, to be precise, lawyers defend the interests of their clients. According to article 31 of the "Lawyers Law of the People's Republic of China", where a lawyer serves as a defender, the procedural rights and other lawful rights and interests of the criminal suspect or defendant shall be preserved on the basis of the facts and law.

Law, like other social sciences, is significantly different from the natural sciences in that not every question has a single correct answer. Many things in life do not necessarily have a standard and definite answer.

4) The core content of the discipline of law is the choice of value, and even two values that need to be protected by the law, and when there is a conflict, the law has to decide which value needs to be protected more. This inevitably arises that different people may have different understandings of the law, not a question of who is right and who is wrong, but which value needs the protection of the law more at this historical point in time. Therefore, different people's understanding of the law will inevitably differ.

Thus, in court, the lawyer, based on his or her own duties, will interpret the law in the interests of the defendant. The above is the relevant information compiled by the lawyer for you on the question of whether lawyers are defending justice, I hope it can help you.

In many film and television dramas, in the process of litigation cases in the court, the defense lawyers are full of energy and clever tongues, especially the lawyers in Hong Kong films, they not only have exquisite makeup, but also excellent Mandarin, very strong eloquence, clear logic in defense, sharp teeth, the judges frequently nod, and the jurors quietly wiped their tears. As soon as the audience saw this, they knew that the lawyer was very powerful, there was no suspense, justice was promoted, and the evildoer was finally tried by the court. Therefore, many people think that the reason why the judge will take the defense lawyer's defense statement is because he is very eloquent, speaks Mandarin very clearly, and his words are logical, so that he can convince the judge.

Isn't that the case in real life?In fact, there is still a certain gap between reality and film and television dramas. The judge will have the following criteria for considering whether or not to respond to the lawyer's opinion.

First, whether there is sufficient evidence. Whether or not the defense point of a case is judged by the judge, sufficient and sufficient evidence is a necessary condition. There is not enough evidence, even if it is said to be fanciful, it is like a castle in the air, without support.

The judge will not be easily convinced.

Second, the lawyer's point of view should be supported by sufficient legal provisions. If a lawyer requests a lighter punishment or a heavier punishment, there must be a relevant legal basis. If it is only emotionally and personally, the judge will only refer to it and not necessarily ask for a lighter reduction or an application for innocence.

Third, the judge will judge the authenticity, relevance, and legitimacy of the evidence provided by the lawyer, and then the judge will summarize opinions similar to his based on these contents. The lawyer's defense is only a reference for the judge, and if strong evidence is not presented to overturn the judge's previous opinion, the lawyer's defense is only a reference and will not necessarily be in the ** link.

In short, it is important for the judge to consider whether the defense lawyer's point of view, or that sentence, is valid and legal evidence.

When the judge considers whether Ling Qi should defend Wang Huhu's opinion, he will use these as the criteria: 1The defence lawyer should ensure that his or her arguments are correct, so that the judge can consider whether or not2.

On the premise of correctness, the defense lawyer's views must also maintain the professionalism of their views;3.In addition to ensuring the correctness and professionalism of the opinions, the defense lawyer must also have a professional approach to the judge.

Can't the hard-earned money of the part-time job be stared at? Is it also a lawsuit? What exactly is the foul? What is the way to stop envy? What do you eat for part-time jobs? What to drink? Where does the cost of living come from? Is it a text search game or what?

Lawyers are defending for money, especially criminals, the biggest role of lawyers is to protect crimes, only in this way can the interests be maximized, lawyers' justice only exists in the amount of money and whether they can win, especially in China, they can do nonsense with their eyes open.

Of course not, lawyers are defending for money.

The client pays the lawyer's fees and entrusts the lawyer to defend the case. Lawyers are in the service of their clients, not in the service of justice. Even if the client is guilty of the most heinous crime, the lawyer must do his best to protect the interests of the client, which is the professional ethics of the lawyer.

It is the responsibility of judges, not lawyers, to uphold fairness and justice.

Preserve the procedural rights and other lawful rights and interests of criminal suspects and defendants.

A professional lawyer, like a specialist, requires a lot of knowledge and experience, would you find someone who has no medical knowledge and experience to treat you?

In fact, it is difficult to judge the professionalism of a criminal lawyer, for the simple reason that it is impossible to accurately judge the quality of a work by a person who does not understand **.

The only way is to become a professional yourself, and this one is difficult.

I can suggest that I take a look at it more...

1. To clarify this issue, it is recommended to study the "Lawyers Law" and the "Lawyers' Practice Standards". 2. Justice in the eyes of lawyers is not justice in the eyes of others.

A lawyer is a person who defends his client, not for money, not for justice, but only for him to be defended.

1. The lawyer's job is to provide legal services for his or her clients and do his best to safeguard the interests of his clients. Because the lawsuit must be fought by both the plaintiff and the defendant, and the lawyer can only serve one party, in the eyes of the other party, the opposing lawyer must say bad things about himself and say that the unfair is fair.

2. There are no strict standards for good lawyers and bad lawyers, it all depends on how you look at it. Some people think that as long as he can win the lawsuit, he is a good lawyer, no matter what means he takes, even if it is illegal and criminal. If you can't win a lawsuit, you're a bad lawyer.

However, I believe that a lawyer who is proficient in the letter of the law, has experience, is loyal to his duties, and is dedicated to his clients, is a good lawyer. A lawyer who is perfunctory to his client, even if he can win the lawsuit, is not a good lawyer.

3. Of course, the lawyer has to collect money, because the lawyer relies on eating for the client's case, and if the client does not pay the lawyer's fee, the lawyer will starve to death. If someone asks you to work for him for nothing, would you do it?A lawyer is not a judge, not a judicial institution that pursues fairness and justice, and a lawyer is just a person who does things for his clients.

You find someone to do things for you, and of course you have to pay for it.

According to article 2 of the "Lawyers Law", "lawyers" as used in this Law refers to practitioners who have obtained a lawyer's practice certificate in accordance with law, accepted the entrustment or designation, and provided legal services to the parties.

The success or failure of a lawsuit does not depend on the lawyer, but a lawyer who is familiar with various laws and regulations and is skilled in the business will make the odds of winning a complex case much higher.

According to article 3 of the "Lawyers Law", lawyers' practice must abide by the Constitution and laws, and abide by lawyers' professional ethics and practice discipline. The practice of lawyers must be based on facts and the law as the criterion. Lawyers' practice shall accept the supervision of the state, society, and parties.

It can be seen from this that lawyers' practice is not a reversal of black and white, but must be based on facts and the law as the criterion.

A lawyer cannot portray unfairness as fairness, nor can he necessarily win a lawsuit. But a lawyer can keep you from saying the wrong thing in court and make something controversial uncontroversial.

Are you venting your anger about something, or do you really want to understand the problem?

In my experience, a qualified lawyer has a professional understanding of legal provisions, has a good grasp of the psychology of the judge's judgment, and can effectively use evidence to persuade the judge.

The judge's judgment is based on the legal basis and the legal fact (this is a fact supported by evidence, which is sometimes different from the truth).

People who have no experience in court often fail to grasp the main points, and it is not easy for their statements and claims to be accepted by judges. Also, the use of evidentiary materials, the validity of evidentiary materials, and how to cross-examine evidence, after all, lawyers eat this bowl of rice, and they will have certain skills.

The difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer is not whether they can win the lawsuit, but whether they can fight for the rights and interests of their clients as much as possible.

The law should emphasize two points: one is the rules;The second is the procedure.

Fairness is nothing more than the perception of people's hearts, and the law itself does not evaluate whether it is fair or not.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a personal opinion.

In court, only the evidence and the legal basis are discussed. There is only one role for lawyers, to find loopholes. Take advantage of the loopholes of the facts and the law. That's one thing.

This isn't a contradiction, right? Even if you put the interests of the parties first, it is impossible to break out of the law.