On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Badri Natarajan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > As for the Shakespearean "let's kill all the lawyers" stuff - nobody is > forcing anyone to come to a lawyer. He is simply wrong when he talks about > fora where the "presence of lawyers is mandatory" - in ANY court, the > parties are allowed to represent themselves in a case (lawyers are the > only people allowed to represent *others*). > > As for delaying tactics, etc - it is the lawyer's duty to do what is in > the client's best interest (usually on the explicit instructions of the > client) as long as it is within the rules. If it suits my client to delay > the case, then I will certainly use the rules to delay the case. I'm yet to meet a client who wants a quick final decision from the court after he has obtained a favorable interim order. And it's a gross misrepresentation to suggest that because judges were passing orders left, right and center during the lawyer strike (happened in Chennai as well when there was a lawyer strike/lathi charge there) lawyers are unnecessary. None of those orders have been tested, and it is still unclear whether they were passed on a full view of the facts and the applicable law. A lot of lawyers are assholes, but often clients are a fine imitation. .
