Defense lawyers aren't responsible?

August 16, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Has anyone seen Liberty Mutual’s online video called “Lawyers” starring Ron Livingston and Saffron Burrows as defense attorneys?

I came across it as I was reading a story on Slate.com. It was an ad imbedded in the story. I took the bait and opened it. It’s well done, but just rubs me the wrong way. And I love Ron Livingston.  

Livingston’s character, Ryder, is a public defender. His girlfriend, Ann, is a private defense attorney who has just agreed to represent a baseball player in a steroids case. Ryder is planning on proposing, but gets cold feet based on Ann’s characters comments on her representation. She wants to make the argument the ball player had no idea what the doctor was injecting into him.

They get into a small ethical debate, which puts an end to the proposal Ryder planned to make in a grand fashion at a restaurant.

Liberty Mutual produced the video as a part of its Responsibility Project, which includes a website on exploring what it means to do the right thing. This is a common theme in its advertising (think of the ad where one person sees someone do a good thing, so that person does something good, and so on, leading back to the first scene of do-gooders), so this is really just a glorified ad campaign.

Part of the project mentions how it’s not always about “black and white,” which is also said in the video. But the video makes it seem like a defense attorney, hired to try to get her client off, is doing something wrong by defending him when she knows he took steroids.

Yes, defense attorneys get a bad rap, but that’s because they defend some bad people. Last time I checked, those accused of a crime are entitled to an attorney, not that only those who are innocent are entitled to an attorney.

The video implies a lack of responsibility on the female attorney’s part. Yes, it stinks that she’s trying to find loopholes and other ways to get her client off, but that’s her job. Is it fair to paint her as a bad person or irresponsible?
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. "Am I bugging you? I don't mean to bug ya." If what I wrote below is too much social philosophy for Indiana attorneys, just take ten this vacay to watch The Lego Movie with kiddies and sing along where appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etzMjoH0rJw

  2. I've got some free speech to share here about who is at work via the cat's paw of the ACLU stamping out Christian observances.... 2 Thessalonians chap 2: "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe. For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last."

  3. Did someone not tell people who have access to the Chevy Volts that it has a gas engine and will run just like a normal car? The batteries give the Volt approximately a 40 mile range, but after that the gas engine will propel the vehicle either directly through the transmission like any other car, or gas engine recharges the batteries depending on the conditions.

  4. Catholic, Lutheran, even the Baptists nuzzling the wolf! http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-documents-reveal-obama-hhs-paid-baptist-children-family-services-182129786-four-months-housing-illegal-alien-children/ YET where is the Progressivist outcry? Silent. I wonder why?

  5. Thank you, Honorable Ladies, and thank you, TIL, for this interesting interview. The most interesting question was the last one, which drew the least response. Could it be that NFP stamps are a threat to the very foundation of our common law American legal tradition, a throwback to the continental system that facilitated differing standards of justice? A throwback to Star Chamber’s protection of the landed gentry? If TIL ever again interviews this same panel, I would recommend inviting one known for voicing socio-legal dissent for the masses, maybe Welch, maybe Ogden, maybe our own John Smith? As demographics shift and our social cohesion precipitously drops, a consistent judicial core will become more and more important so that Justice and Equal Protection and Due Process are yet guiding stars. If those stars fall from our collective social horizon (and can they be seen even now through the haze of NFP opinions?) then what glue other than more NFP decisions and TRO’s and executive orders -- all backed by more and more lethally armed praetorians – will prop up our government institutions? And if and when we do arrive at such an end … will any then dare call that tyranny? Or will the cost of such dissent be too high to justify?

ADVERTISEMENT