Papafran Wed 25-Oct-17 15:02:18

Agree with others. You would absolutely be insisting on the best lawyer available if anyone you knew was accused of a crime. Including if there was compelling evidence. I am sorry your DD got upset and cross examination is intended to put the defendant's case to the witness, not to upset the witness. However, obviously the witness will get upset if the defendant's case is that she is lying.

A lawyer is a mouthpiece for her client. The lawyer presumably abhors domestic abuse but her job is to represent her client to the best of her ability and put her client's case to the court. It is a fundamental human right that everyone is entitled to and we have seen time and time again that miscarriages of justice happen, even in the age of advanced technology. In less developed and more barbaric cultures, people are often thrown in jail, tortured or even executed without anyone speaking up for them.



Additionally, lawyers owe an overriding duty to the court. If your DD's ex had admitted to his lawyer that he did it, she would have had to stop acting for him unless he pleaded guilty. Lawyers do not lie for a living, nor do they get off on humiliating victims or twisting the truth.



I am/was a lawyer (not practising now). I used to get annoyed about the lawyer-hate and the presumption that we were all rich fat-cats without morals. FWIW, criminal law pays the least of any area of law and the lawyer who cross-examined your DD will be earning peanuts, yet still feels a strong enough commitment to carry on doing what is most of the time a totally thankless job. You should be grateful for that.