Lawyers: Hired Guns of Justice?

Are lawyers like mercenaries who will fight for any cause provided they get their fees?

Image courtesy: Amazon

In the book "India's Legal System: Can It Be Saved?", published by Penguin on 15 March 2017, the author Fali S. Nariman, the renowned constitutional expert and senior Supreme Court lawyer who died recently on 21 February 2024 at the age of 95 years, states:

"India has the second-largest legal profession in the world, but the systemic delays and chronic impediments of its judicial system inspire little confidence in the common person".  

Debatable Question

However, what prompted me to ask this rather controversial question about our uninspiring judicial system is something different. We regularly see a set of high-profile lawyers of the Supreme Court who always represent clients of the opposition political parties or opposition-ruled states or even criminals in their legal fights against the Union government, and who act like mercenaries (hired professional soldiers who are primarily motivated by payment). The Union government is mainly composed of the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, and powers vested by the constitution in the Prime Minister, Parliament, and the Supreme Court, respectively.

Similarities

The first similarity I find between lawyers and mercenaries is that both are paid professionals who take on clients or missions in exchange for a high fee. That is, both lawyers and mercenaries are professionals who are highly paid for their services.

The second similarity is in terms of advocacy, since both advocate for their clients; lawyers argue for their client's position while mercenaries fight for their employer's cause. That is, lawyers can represent a variety of clients, just like mercenaries can fight for different sides in a conflict.

Differences

But then, I am also aware of the differences between the two tribes, namely, of lawyers and mercenaries. 

The first difference is regarding ethical obligations, legality, and professional standards. Lawyers are supposed to be bound by a code of ethics and therefore they can't knowingly take a case that has no merit, or that would require them to break the law. Whereas, mercenaries generally have fewer ethical restrictions. In terms of their goals, lawyers aim to achieve a legal victory for their clients within the justice system. In contrast, mercenaries fight to win a battle, regardless of the legal implications. 

Grey Area

However, concepts such as ethics, legality, and professional standards are subjective matters representing grey areas and hence depend on individual lawyer's perceptions, personal values, and beliefs. That is why we find prosecution and defense lawyers in the judicial system, both operating within a legal and ethical framework, though they represent opposing sides.

Therefore, while there may be many lawyers who are passionate about social justice, there is also a prominent group of high-profile lawyer-cum-politicians who prioritize high fees over everything else. This group also has the political ideology of opposing all programs and policies of the current ruling NDA alliance, which constitutes the Union Government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Also, the NDA governs seventeen Indian states and union territories.

Mercenary Lawyers

In conclusion, after analyzing the similarities and differences between lawyers and mercenaries, can we wrap up by stating that both lawyers and mercenaries will fight for any cause provided they get their fees?  Or is this focus on ideological advocacy and high fees only a matter of perception? 

I would like to learn more from the luminaries of the legal fraternity as well as from the practitioners of the judicial system on this contentious topic.