Shouldn't legal professionals have some moral responsibility towards society?

Yes. Everybody knows that our Judicial system is in a sad state of affairs. Unless it is thoroughly overhauled atrocities in legal system go unabated.

The legal system as it is practiced in reality is heavily against the poor and middle class to a large extent not assured of getting justice. It is very easy to get adjournment after adjournment and delay the process literally till eternity. Every court appearance costs money. So the economically weak are drained of their finances, a way of weakening their resolve to get justice. In 2008 leading lawyers would charge Rs 1 lakh for every appearance in the Su[preme Court. Every briefing session to them by the client was also charged Rs i lakh per session. Today i am told it can go upto Rs 4 lakhs per appearance. How many can afford? Their is rampant corruption in lower courts . Frustrating delays are the order of the day.Very few lawyers have morals. Money is the name of the game.

True. And these adjournments are a boon to the Lawyers. Our Judicial system is not for the poor. It's being ruled by the rich and influential.

The legal professional goes by the book is fine but my point is why the professionals do not refuse to take the case which seems to be a false one. The legal professionals can easily understand and catch their client so they have the right to refuse the wrongdoers and in this way they can help the society.

This is the saddest part in the country about our legal profession. I am against those lawyers who know very clearly that their client is a cheat, a murderer, a rapist and what not but they try to put forward a positive image of their client which I feel is anti-society and anti-human. You may counter me that then for every wrong doer there will be no lawyer. I am talking only about those culprits who committed heinous crime, if they get saved that will be a curse on the society and if gets punished then too no punishment will be enough for such criminals. Basically, such criminals should not enjoy any legal help.     

I totally agree with you but what happens in such case where a powerful person is the culprit and he/she hires a very successful lawyer while the victim is economically weak and can't afford to hire an influential lawyer then usually it's a lost battle for the innocent person. There comes the point that at certain point of time the legal fraternity must stand up unanimously for the innocent one and force the powerful man to understand that money cannot buy honesty.

Absolutely true! The morality is nowhere to be found in most of the lawyers. The lawyers are usually no one's friend because for them money matters the most. India is comparatively a poor country so there should be a limitation on the fees of the lawyers too or else the innocent people from a financially weaker background would not be able to get legal help. The fees of these lawyers are increasing day by day just like the fees of the private schools in India.

True. Morality seems to be a thing of the past.Unless morality is established, Law becomes a meaningless exercise in futility.

I basically think that every self respecting citizen of the world needs to have a sense of social responsibility. True that the legal professionals need to be more so.. But it seems morals and values have lost to the power of money. 

Morals and values are needed in every ;profession. It's not restricted only to legal profession.

Shampa Sadhya wrote:

Absolutely true! The morality is nowhere to be found in most of the lawyers. The lawyers are usually no one's friend because for them money matters the most. India is comparatively a poor country so there should be a limitation on the fees of the lawyers too or else the innocent people from a financially weaker background would not be able to get legal help. The fees of these lawyers are increasing day by day just like the fees of the private schools in India.

 

 You have written four posts in a row which is against the rule here...If we don't practice or follow the rules , what is the point in having them, the moderators and the other members who jump at others when they do this, too seem to have overlooked this...

Anyhow  Posting in a row has been checked. Presently the Poster has avoided this practice. It happens when the member is new.

Shampa Sadhya wrote:

The legal professional goes by the book is fine but my point is why the professionals do not refuse to take the case which seems to be a false one. The legal professionals can easily understand and catch their client so they have the right to refuse the wrongdoers and in this way they can help the society.

Even if clearly false one, the accused has to get some advocate to present his case. If accused himself does not fight his case and seeks advocate, he must get one. Otherwise there can be no legal proceedings. Court cannot decide a case by hearing arguments against him only This will be against natural justice. Even if does not get an advocate, court will appoint some advocate to present his case. 

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

Shampa Sadhya wrote:

The legal professional goes by the book is fine but my point is why the professionals do not refuse to take the case which seems to be a false one. The legal professionals can easily understand and catch their client so they have the right to refuse the wrongdoers and in this way they can help the society.

Even if clearly false one, the accused has to get some advocate to present his case. If accused himself does not fight his case and seeks advocate, he must get one. Otherwise there can be no legal proceedings. Court cannot decide a case by hearing arguments against him only This will be against natural justice. Even if does not get an advocate, court will appoint some advocate to present his case.

Yes. If an accused is not in a position to employ a lawyer to defend himself, court itself appoints an advocate.

 

To be very honest I did not do it deliberately. Even I was not aware of this rule and came to know right now from your post. I have no intention to break the rules and always try to respect it. The rule is not clear to me, suppose I answer three questions one after the another or participate in topics, then, am I not allowed to post the fourth one? After How long can I participate in posting my answers and all? I will be thankful to you if you can explain a bit about it And I am sincerely sorry for breaking the rule though unknowingly.

I know. In the beginning many committed this mistake. But we were ably guided by y the seniors and moderators.

I want to clear the doubt that I have not deliberately broken the rule. I was completely not aware of such a rule. At present, I did not post continuously is not that I deliberately avoided to commit the blunder again. It just happened because I was ignorant. If you don't mind then may I say you something that is I always find your comment on various topic and so never thought that there should be some time gap in between. So, I am sorry if I have hurt the site's sentiment but believe me it was not done intentionally.

Now matter is settled and you too have realized your mistake. This is how we learn from mistakes.Cheers.

Shampa, no worries.. I didn't get this too..  Somehow its is not clear to the new comers that we should not comment/ respond  successively even if many people have posted before us and we were just resounding to each of those comments. I assumed that they meant we are not to start two strings or discussions at once. Maybe a re-look at the wording there would help. 

Shampa Sadhya wrote:

To be very honest I did not do it deliberately. Even I was not aware of this rule and came to know right now from your post. I have no intention to break the rules and always try to respect it. The rule is not clear to me, suppose I answer three questions one after the another or participate in topics, then, am I not allowed to post the fourth one? After How long can I participate in posting my answers and all? I will be thankful to you if you can explain a bit about it And I am sincerely sorry for breaking the rule though unknowingly.

 

I have mentioned this time and again and if I remember writing it under your posts too. If you have to answer multiple members either mention them in same box or wait until someone else has used a box, thank you.