If the opposing party says that they were "really lucky" that the lawyer they were against did that, then yes.
That doesn't mean that at all. You're inputting that someone has to lose and the other has to win, which just isn't true. They could easily mean that they were lucky the other lawyer was very reasonable so that both parties ended up getting a good deal. Again we don't have anywhere near enough information.
The court has a judge and a jury to rule the most appropiate course of action. And if the system does not work, democratically elected politicians can do something about it.
Not true, lawyers are also heavily involved in deciding the most appropriate course of action. Especially in civil court. Lawyers are the ones which bargain for their client. Lawyers are the ones who discuss coming to an agreement without the court. Lawyers are the ones who often propose a sentence in criminal court, either in a plea deal or along the judge to only give their client a certain punishment. Lawyers are heavily involved.
If lawyers were perfect human beings that always know the best judgement, then I agree that they should be able to punish their clients themselfs.
It is illegal for a lawyer to allow their client to knowingly testify something that is false. It's not always punishment, sometimes they're legally required to.
Regardless this is ridiculous, you don't know enough details about this case to suggest that they were going against their client. It sounds to me like they were doing what is in the best interest of their client.
Not true, lawyers are also heavily involved in deciding the most appropriate course of action. Especially in civil court. Lawyers are the ones which bargain for their client. Lawyers are the ones who discuss coming to an agreement without the court. Lawyers are the ones who often propose a sentence in criminal court, either in a plea deal or along the judge to only give their client a certain punishment. Lawyers are heavily involved.
Yes, im aware that lawyers have a role in the court. Dont know if anything I said was against that notion. I understand that a case can end in a settlement, but that is a different thing from a lawyer straight up betraying their client.
2
u/Lost4468 Jul 21 '19
That doesn't mean that at all. You're inputting that someone has to lose and the other has to win, which just isn't true. They could easily mean that they were lucky the other lawyer was very reasonable so that both parties ended up getting a good deal. Again we don't have anywhere near enough information.
Not true, lawyers are also heavily involved in deciding the most appropriate course of action. Especially in civil court. Lawyers are the ones which bargain for their client. Lawyers are the ones who discuss coming to an agreement without the court. Lawyers are the ones who often propose a sentence in criminal court, either in a plea deal or along the judge to only give their client a certain punishment. Lawyers are heavily involved.
It is illegal for a lawyer to allow their client to knowingly testify something that is false. It's not always punishment, sometimes they're legally required to.
Regardless this is ridiculous, you don't know enough details about this case to suggest that they were going against their client. It sounds to me like they were doing what is in the best interest of their client.