Justice for the case
Contributed by Rtr Harnniann
From time to time, engaging in a legal debate with a layman can be fun and informative as it is a great exercise for lawyers to see the point of view of laymen who often are their potential clients.
One day, Engtee asked me what I did in court that morning. I simply answered, “oh, to get another postponement so that I can file my client’s defence.”
“Just that? Then your job is so simple!”
I protested, “No! I have to make sure the court gives me at least a 2 months postponement, it is not easy.”
My answer puzzled her, “why you lawyers always like to drag the matters in court?”
“It depends. If I am acting for the Plaintiff (the party who sues) of course I’d want my case to be disposed off expeditiously. But if my client is the defendant, then I will use all my skill and knowledge to have the matter delayed as long as possible so that my client has sufficient time to prepare the necessaries.”
“Why?”
“Well, you see, as a Plaintiff’s lawyer, you are tasked to push forward. You should be ready to fight for the case every time your case is called up in court. You should object to every single request for postponement by the defendant. You should make sure that the defendant gets the shortest postponement…
But as a defendant’s lawyer, you do exactly the opposite. This is especially so when you know your client has nothing to argue about in court. You put in numerous interlocutory applications, maybe try your luck to strike out the plaintiff’s claim.
It’s like playing tug of war. The Plaintiff pulled as hard as possible towards one direction while the Defendant does the same at opposite direction. Both sides should try all their best to get what they want. Then we shall reach a balanced point, which is called justice of the case.”
Engtee was not impressed, “I don’t understand what you talk about but I think Justice means if you owe people money, you pay.”
Sometimes lawyers can be long winded and very philosophical when they explain the true meaning of justice. Yet, put it to a layman, it simply means “you owe money you pay”.
One day, Engtee asked me what I did in court that morning. I simply answered, “oh, to get another postponement so that I can file my client’s defence.”
“Just that? Then your job is so simple!”
I protested, “No! I have to make sure the court gives me at least a 2 months postponement, it is not easy.”
My answer puzzled her, “why you lawyers always like to drag the matters in court?”
“It depends. If I am acting for the Plaintiff (the party who sues) of course I’d want my case to be disposed off expeditiously. But if my client is the defendant, then I will use all my skill and knowledge to have the matter delayed as long as possible so that my client has sufficient time to prepare the necessaries.”
“Why?”
“Well, you see, as a Plaintiff’s lawyer, you are tasked to push forward. You should be ready to fight for the case every time your case is called up in court. You should object to every single request for postponement by the defendant. You should make sure that the defendant gets the shortest postponement…
But as a defendant’s lawyer, you do exactly the opposite. This is especially so when you know your client has nothing to argue about in court. You put in numerous interlocutory applications, maybe try your luck to strike out the plaintiff’s claim.
It’s like playing tug of war. The Plaintiff pulled as hard as possible towards one direction while the Defendant does the same at opposite direction. Both sides should try all their best to get what they want. Then we shall reach a balanced point, which is called justice of the case.”
Engtee was not impressed, “I don’t understand what you talk about but I think Justice means if you owe people money, you pay.”
Sometimes lawyers can be long winded and very philosophical when they explain the true meaning of justice. Yet, put it to a layman, it simply means “you owe money you pay”.
posted by harnniann at 1:40 pm
2 Comments:
Reading your article gave me a rough idea what's going on in a lawyer's mind. Maybe i could relate to my (laymen) term of "tug of war":
Between a seller and buyer.Seller trying to mark up the price whereas buyer trying to supress the price. Thus, bargaining power occurs. Then come to an agreeable price.
So,back to the theme of the article. Is there justice?
Or better to say it depends on which angle an individual looking at it?
indeed a marvelous article.
however i would cling on my notion that the judges are the determinant of all these vague phenomenons.
Strike for a balance between the adverserial? is just a matter of favourtism, very much depend on which side the judge opt to give his favour.
JUSTICE IS PREVAILed in the court
whocares? it sound like a sarky statement made ironically.
Conclusion, the so-called balance point is never stagnant. the main due to ensure the balance point would be natural justice and can we see that in malaysia? Without the emergence of natural justice the so called JUSTICE FOR THE CASE is never natural hence lead to an unjust senario.
sorry for the rant
urs
zkin
Post a Comment
<< Home