From a macro point of view, lawyers are entrusted by clients, receive money and are loyal to others. Naturally, they speak for clients who pay their lawyers' fees. However, if we zoom in, from the perspective of micro-legal practice, the question of who lawyers speak for is more complicated.
First, speak for the parties, not for yourself.
In the case of lawyers' representation, most of them belong to this situation, that is, lawyers' statements represent their clients' ideas, not lawyers' own views. For example, in the divorce case, love rat and love rat, who have been cheated by their agents for many times, said their own opinions in the lawyer's court. From the lawyer's heart, he may completely object to what he said in court.
Second, speak for yourself, but not entirely for the parties.
Although this kind of situation serves the interests of the parties on the macro level, it may appear in criminal cases because lawyers and parties have different views on the micro level. For example, in the crime of illegal fund-raising, lawyers lightly defend the crime from their own understanding, while criminals emphasize their innocence from their own perspective. These two opinions are different. Because in criminal cases, lawyers have the right to defend independently, so they will appear. Lawyers say lawyers' opinions and criminals say criminals' opinions are not exactly the same.
Third, don't speak for yourself, don't speak for the parties, speak for the judge.
At the end of the year, it is inevitable that some judges will mobilize the parties to withdraw the lawsuit in order to achieve their goals. Sometimes, if they can't be reasonable, they will find a lawyer and ask him to help with the work for the client. At this time, what the lawyer said to the client did not represent the interests of the client or his own point of view, but spoke for the judge, which was a headache for the lawyer.
Fourth, speak on behalf of grassroots organizations.
Lawyers sometimes participate in free consultation or legal publicity activities arranged by law firms. At this time, lawyers do not represent any specific interests, but represent grassroots organizations to publicize and explain the law from the perspective of administrative subjects. Generally speaking, there is no direct conflict between the law and anyone. Judging from the pressure, lawyers still like this kind of work. Unfortunately, this kind of work generally doesn't make money.
Five, talk together.
Lawyers can handle the above situations calmly in different cases and different time periods, but sometimes it is confusing for lawyers to speak on behalf of different people in the same case at the same time.
For example, lawyers are still promoting the marriage law in the morning, screaming at the top of their lungs to punish domestic violence. In the afternoon, they represent husbands who have domestic violence and spit lotus flowers to excuse the perpetrators. After the trial, the judge urged mediation and the lawyer tried his best to promote the mediation rate of the judge. Just then, he received a phone call. It was an elder sister who listened to a lecture in the morning and cried and said that she was wronged by her husband. Therefore, I have to say that some lawyers can't be uprooted like the Monkey King.
To sum up, as far as specific cases are concerned, what a lawyer says depends largely on which party he accepts. There is quite a feeling of standing on some mountain and singing some songs, which is sometimes confusing. However, from a macro perspective, it is an indispensable voice in the development of the rule of law that lawyers accept the entrustment of the parties, speak for the interests of the parties from a legal perspective, and safeguard the fairness and justice of the law.