RESPECT: Lawyers or Doctors.....

[Dorothea]

---

Agree pud ko sa uban nga ang character sa tawo mismo ang dapat basehan ug dili ang propesyon. But keeping in line with the "spirit" of the thread, I would say doctors. And only because I have had more contact with doctors than lawyers, being the hypochondriac that I am. I know lawyers who are good people but I haven't consulted with a lawyer on a professional basis yet, so the "law" is so foreign and unfamiliar to me. Mas respetar gyud ko sa mga doktor with the exception of my dentist, blehhh...

[cebu-future]

Depende sa personality sa usa ka tawo. Respect is earned.

[leor_oleur]

yes, i agree..respect is earned, not imposed..hence, it doesn't choose any profession!

[clarkhkent]

ill have more respect with the doctors than the lawyers!

[carlomonic]

for me both...if they deserve to be...

[shimiyu]

character and integrity dictate the amount of respect a person receives, whatever the profession.
but with all the lawyer jokes(?) out there.........

[preloader]

i dont know about lawyers , but the last doctor iv met was less than impeccables,

[Minuano27]

.. i give more respect to doctors, not because i'm one but because of what they, or "we" do. It's helping people. People in need. But sometimes there are some who put patients on a leash, give false medications just to suck money out of rich people. And no offense to any lawyers out there, but i don't like it when they defend the guilty. I mean, the phrase " not guilty until proven so", give me a break, it's so lame. For sure along the line, there are times when the lawyer sees that the person they're defending is indeed guilty but then they try to alter the truth. I find it so gutless.

i'm a lawyer and i've been practicing for 20 years now. in 13 of those years, i taught law subjects in undergrad courses in manila and in cebu, and major law subjects in 3 of the better law schools here in cebu, and perhaps some of the lawyer-members of our forum were my students once. it's unfortunate that your post is a baseless generalization derived from misconceptions of the workings of the law. i'm not going to post a lecture on this since i will just bore everyone. suffice it to say, those who posted that respect comes from character got it right, as that is a universal truth that applies to everyone.

[fingolfin]

i'm a lawyer and i've been practicing for 20 years now. in 13 of those years, i taught law subjects in undergrad courses in manila and in cebu, and major law subjects in 3 of the better law schools here in cebu, and perhaps some of the lawyer-members of our forum were my students once. it's unfortunate that your post is a baseless generalization derived from misconceptions of the workings of the law. i'm not going to post a lecture on this since i will just bore everyone. suffice it to say, those who posted that respect comes from character got it right, as that is a universal truth that applies to everyone.

.. hullo there atty. can you please enlighten us with that issue i just presented. When you see that your client is guilty, why would you still defend them ??

[Minuano27]

.. hullo there atty. can you please enlighten us with that issue i just presented. When you see that your client is guilty, why would you still defend them ??

the answer to your question is: it's in the Code of Professional Responsibility - "a lawyer shall not decline to represent a client x x x because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of the said person."

the next question is going to be: "if that's the case, then what should the lawyer do?" the lawyer's obligation is to see to it that the person's rights are/were not violated. as you may recall from your political law class, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and in criminal cases, this means proof beyond a reasonable doubt. in practice, this means that the lawyer is obligated to question each and every piece of evidence presented by the prosecution. every crime is composed of "elements"; take away or put serious doubt on one element, and there is already reasonable doubt which can lead to an acquittal. you have to remember though that an "acquittal based on reasonable doubt" does not mean that the accused did not commit the crime; it only means that the prosecution did not present enough evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

the "lawyers are liars" perception comes from this situation because every dispute always involves 2 sides, each side claiming the "truth". since the prosecution's burden is to prove their "truth" beyond a reasonable doubt", then any little doubt can look like "altering the truth". by and large, this is a wrong assumption. you'd be surprised that most witnesses either lie in court, or their testimonies cannot stand up to cross-examination. most witnesses will categorically state a fact, but during cross-examination, you'll realize that they aren't exactly clear on what they saw. for instance, a witness says that at about 9pm, he saw Pedro shoot Juan. when he's cross-examined, he's going to be asked about the lighting in the area, how far he was from the victim, the number of people around, his eyesight, etc. then it turns out that the place was not well lighted, he was about 40 meters away, he saw 3 people arguing, he was doing something else when he heard a shot, when he turned around he saw 1 person on the ground and the other 2 running away. 40 meters away in dim light, his back turned - in the course of ordinary human experience, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to say for sure that Pedro shot Juan. it's these kinds of things that a lawyer is obligated to do to defend the client

there are, of course, some cases where everyone (even lawyers) knows that a person is guilty. but if the evidence is not sufficient to convict, then that's it. that's the way the criminal justice system has always been, and unless the constitution is changed to remove the presumption of innocence, that's the way its going to be.