Since childhood, Susan has known that she would become a defense lawyer. She wants to fight powerful people who abuse others, and she works actively to help government and democracy in general work effectively. Once, when Susan was representing two individuals on death row and lost the capital trial in state court, Susan and her fellow defense lawyers had to decide whether to file an appeal. A group of civil libertarians with whom she had been working urged her to wait five years because filing an appeal was likely to set back the statewide fight against the death penalty for a number of years. However, both of Susan’s clients were scheduled to be executed within that time, so Susan chose to appeal the decision, thus saving her clients’ lives.
Firm About “Flim Flam”
Gail has served as a criminal defense attorney for twenty-three years, and she was appointed a federal district court judge in the mid 1990s. She is a highly principled person, and she feels that her values shape her decisions in her professional life. Early on in her career, when she was having trouble finding cases, she was approached with a request to represent a woman charged with “flim flam,” which was basically an elaborate scheme to steal money. After Gail initially agreed to represent the woman and received full payment on the spot, she changed her mind and returned the money. Although many would argue that Gail had a responsibility as a lawyer to represent anyone who needed it, she said that the woman clearly had resources with which to locate and hire other legal representation, and she said that there was nothing the woman had done with which she cared to be involved. Despite having made a decision that felt in line with her values, she still questions whether she made the correct professional decision.
A Tale of Two Lawyers
Joseph is a lawyer in a large corporate law firm and, above all, values maintaining personal loyalty. Many years ago, Joseph was offered the job of representing a bank in an upcoming acquisition deal. Joseph was told that if he wanted to represent the bank, he would have to keep his involvement a secret from the other members of his firm: one of his colleagues was representing one of the bank’s major competitors. Joseph accepted the offer; however, as part of this, he was required to establish a “wall” between himself and several of his colleagues that would block them from even talking with him. Joseph felt as though he needed to tell the main partner who was being “walled off” what was going on, so he told her as much of the truth as he felt able to do. However, when news of the deal Joseph was representing broke, the partner he had “walled off” was furious, and felt personally betrayed and hurt. To this day, Joseph feels that he should have acted differently.