The dignity of legal representation

24 Nov 18 1539


In Lawyers as Upholders of Human Dignity, Georgetown Law Professor and legal ethics guru David Luban explains how advancing and maintaining human dignity is a fundamental cornerstone of our profession. Indeed, it is  “what makes the practice of law worthwhile.” 

Defining dignity as a “property of relationships between humans”, Prof. Luban articulates how the right to legal representation in criminal cases neatly encapsulates the notion of the law as a defender of human dignity. Prof. Luban starts with the premise that if human dignity is to mean anything at all, it must mean that every human has the right to have her story heard, particularly if the consequences at stake are moral condemnation, and loss of life or liberty, in the form of criminal sanction. “A procedural system that simply gagged a litigant and refused to even consider her version of the case would be, in effect, treating her story as if it did not exist, and treating her point of view as if it were literally beneath contempt.”

If we accept the premise that human dignity requires a full and fair opportunity to be heard, the need for an effective advocate becomes obvious. People may be inarticulate, ignorant of the law or the process, or even unable to speak or write. Without effective advocacy, the voiceless and legally mute cannot be heard or even acknowledged, and thus their dignity is denied. “Human dignity does not depend on whether one is stupid or smooth. Hence the need for the advocate.”

But isn’t it true that a lawyer’s theory of the case may wildly diverge from reality? How is allowing advocates to “spin” a case upholding human dignity? Prof. Luban answers:

The law forces an artificial and stylized organization into the way stories have to be told; by trial time, any legally coherent telling of the client’s story will bear only scant resemblance to its raw version. And, precisely if the client is inarticulate, unreflective, or simply stupid, the lawyers’ version will be stronger, cleaner, and more nuanced than the client’s version. The lawyer will read between the lines, and perhaps imbue the story with more subtlety than the client ever could. It seems to me that this does not disqualify the story from being, in an important sense, the client’s story.

What if that story is totally inconsistent with the truth? The strength of Prof. Luban’s thesis is tested by the following hypothetical that the professor relates:

A man is arrested while placing a stolen television into his car, and charged with possession of stolen goods. He tells the police that he bought it from a stranger on the street and had no idea it was stolen. At trial, he does not testify, but his lawyer wishes to argue the client’s version of how he obtained the television. The lawyer, cross-examining the arresting officer, elicits the admission that the defendant was placing the television in the back seat of his car, not the trunk. Arguing to the jury, the lawyer points out that if the defendant knew the television was stolen, he would be unlikely to put it in plain sight. … But unbeknownst to the jury and the prosecutor, yet known to the lawyer, the defendant did not have a key to the trunk.

Human dignity is advanced in this scenario, Prof. Luban maintains, because presuming initially that the criminal defendant has a good faith story to tell requires us to presume innocence that can be overcome only with a higher demonstration of guilt: the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. “Because we presume innocence”, the professor deduces, “the [reasonable doubt] standard says that if a good faith story of innocence could be constructed from the evidence, it violates the human dignity of the defendant to convict—even if that story is not true.”
Query Thread Page

On this page you can:
 
  • subscribe to this query
    By subscribing, you will receive email (as frequently as you specify) of new activity in this query.
  • vote up or vote down queries and replies
    Voting is a generalized proxy for your assessment of the worth, quality, articulation, etc of a query or reply. Voting up a reply or query increases the reply/query author's mojo by one. After you vote, you have five minutes to undo it.
  • reply to the query or add a comment to the query or any reply
    A reply is a serious substantive response, worthy of addition to the knowledge being recorded for all of us here. Comments, simply, are for responses that are not replies (questions, clarifications, caveats, etc). You must scroll all the way down to add a reply; might as well read all of the replies on the way down. If you would like to include with your reply new legal text for others to edit, feel free to add a clause. Adding a reply gives you one mojo.
  • edit a clause (quick-reply)
    If you want to quickly add a reply that is an edit of another member's legal text, click the edit clause link on the clause you wish to edit, and you will be taken to the bottom of the page, with the text of the clause ready for your edits.
  • select best reply (if you are the author of the query)
    If you authored this query, be sure to select the reply that you believe is the best (and consider explaining why you selected this reply as best in a comment to that reply). You receive one mojo for doing so. The author of the reply you select as best will receive four mojo or the bounty award you posted for this query. You can change your mind as many times as you want. If you de-select a best reply, the reply author loses two mojo or the bounty mojo awarded, and you lose one mojo.
  • edit/update or delete query (if you are the query author)
    If you authored this query, you may edit it at any time, and delete it before a reply has been posted to it. Clauses may be edited only if no other member has redlined that clause. You may also add a bounty award or increase already-posted bounty, at any time (even after a reply has been posted).
  • flag (ie complain about) a query, reply or comment
    Use as sparingly as appropriate given the circumstances.
  • quiver and favorite
    You may add/remove this query to/from your favorites, and add/remove clauses in this query to/from your quiver. If you are a guild moderator, you can similarly add/remove this query to/from guild favorites, and add/remove clauses here to/from your guild quiver.

A friendly reminder: be excellent to each other and remember the human.

FAQs | How do I ...?
What are subscriptions?
Redline allows you to subscribe to queries (so that you can be alerted to new replies and comments that are posted to those queries), members (so that you can know of new queries posted by that member) and guilds (so that you can track new queries posted with tags of guilds you follow). With subscriptions, you are notified via email, and on the Home (Your Notifications) page, of new activity corresponding to your subscriptions. Via the Settings/Subscriptions page, you can manage your subscriptions, including altering the timing of notification emails.