Serving a Cause vs. Serving a Client

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.

Susan always knew that she would become a defense lawyer. Wanting to fight powerful people who abused others, and passionate about protecting the underdog against the establishment, she was naturally drawn to a profession in which she could help people who lacked the resources to defend themselves. She was looking for a challenge and a career that placed a high value on fairness. Law seemed an obvious choice. 

After graduating from law school, Susan launched a few successful careers: one representing defendants and another as a writer. Susan operates along a number of different guidelines and answers to various responsibilities, depending on her role. As a public intellectual and writer, she writes and speaks frequently on issues of civil rights. She works actively to help government, and democracy in general, work effectively, and works to keep the system honest, fair, and efficient. 

As a defense attorney, Susan argues that her exclusive responsibility is to help her client win a case. She wants to win her cases or do the best she can for her client, and concerns about the criminal justice system must take a backseat. 

Once, Susan was representing two individuals on death row. According to Susan, they were guilty of a crime that preceded a murder, but had not actually committed the murder itself. After having lost the capital trial in state court, Susan and her fellow lawyers had to make a decision about whether to file an appeal in an attempt to reverse the death penalty decision. 

A group of civil libertarians who had been working with Susan heard about the case, analyzed the court, and predicted how the justices would vote. They advised her not to proceed, arguing that she would lose by one vote and this would set back their case concerning the death penalty in that state by a number of years. They said it would be better to wait about five years before bringing this type of issue before the court. 

But Susan didn’t have five years to spare: both clients were scheduled to be executed before then. She decided to file the appeal, knowing it would hurt her cause but help her clients. In the end, the case proceeded just as Susan’s civil-libertarian colleagues had predicted it would, in a loss of five to four. According to Susan, “We lost the case, but we lost it in a way that allowed us to keep [my clients] alive by going back to the [state’s name] Supreme Court. Others on death row died because of my decision to take the case. But yet because my primary—in fact my exclusive—loyalty was to my clients at that point, I couldn’t think about the implications for others.” Susan’s decision saved the lives of both of her clients, but the result had negative impacts as well— a number of other prisoners lost their lives.