The good minds thinking sure to first tell the truth ahead, demonstrating the innocence or assuming responsibilities should know we are not innocent of what we are accused, is the way to go immediately to judgments.

prepare good legal defense

And surely that is a way forward and that is a very moral and ethical line. What happens is that, in reality, a defense lawyer does not get paid to assume responsibility for their client. A defense lawyer is paid to win and win means achieving absolution or in case it is not possible to ensure that the penalty should be as small as possible.

Attention that, to say the previous thing, means to do neither an unproved statement nor much less to which the lawyer should lie, means not mean, of course, that should commit any illegality, what he’s saying is that the “next-door” discourses of morality and justice are very well, and is not be immoral or unjust, what is being said is that without betraying the truth we can explain the truth in many ways, you can build a case for our customers to get the best possible solution.

Of course, obviously the ideal scenario is one case in which the matter is very clear, the defendant exposes the truth of it and from that moment and the consequences that may result intuit. But evil will make a good lawyer if only conforms to the truth of his client, the truth can have many faces and their function is to find and display the most favorable face to your customer.

Obviously, in some cases, the best thing may be that the story line is chosen, the line of defense that follow is purely and strictly to show the crude truth, assuming it and thus pursuing the lowest possible sentence, because it is clear already from entry that condemns exist there. In these cases, the function is to pursue the least possible damage to the client but realistically and making him see the client that the minor damage happens to assume some type of harm and that otherwise the risk, or certainty, of suffering paradoxically a safe most damage is almost assured.

But not all cases are as well, in most cases there are nuances, there are differences and there are even ways to articulate the truth that can be of a great help for the defense of the client and it is there where the big difference between a lawyer and another.

The “mechanical” lawyer, the lawyer who simply uses a standard and bureaucratic style can be well and is ideal for any type of cases that demand this type of profile but, without any doubt, for cases where there is controversy, where there is dispute and confrontation the required profile will be all the contrary.

The defense has to be articulated based on a true, obviously, but not any truth and surely than any professional that will be able to find those points, those specific and essential elements to achieve turn around a situation that is complicated. And it is in this type of lawyer able to argue where almost there is no argument, where he is able to pull the thread where the coil is almost finished and capable of disguising the truth without thereby untruthful where you will find the authentic value of a lawyer.

It is necessary to repeat that where many will see an immorality or an injustice what really exists is a strategy thought-out and raised to achieve the best results to the client that defends and represents. Of course, this does not have to mean that neither the defense attorney believes that defending even less to support it; it just comes to defending the interests of who pays you.

Just as any professional makes the service as the client asks him although personally he should not like whenever it does not prove in incurring any illegality in the case of lawyers is no different.