Does the American system of law depend on the legal team to put aside its personal beliefs and work diligently on unpopular cases or issues?

Answer 1

Unable to answer, there is too much in the question is open to debate. AND - WHAT legal "team" is being referred to?

ANSWER:

The answer to this question is clearly, Yes. The is because the American legal system is an adversarial one. That stems mainly from the fact that this country is a country of laws and not even the government can do what it pleases if prohibited by law or the Constitution. Often, people disagree as to how far these limitations go and when these disagreements arise, the courts are needed to settle the dispute.

There are two sides to every case in court. In criminal law it is the state (prosecutor) and defendant. In civil matters it is plaintiff and defendant. Each side tries to prove its case while trying to disprove the other side's case. There is no common "search for the truth." One side puts its strongest case forward while the other side does the same and an impartial finder of fact (a jury in a jury trial or the judge in a bench trial) decides which side is correct.

The law is complicated. It is difficult if not impossible for an ordinary citizen to put a case forward in the best way possible. Therefore, the ordinary citizen is represented by a "legal team", be it one lawyer or two or an entire firm, to put that citizen's case forward in the best possible light as zealously as possible. The state's "legal team" consists of the prosecutor, the police and all the resources the government has at its command.

In a criminal case, the legal team may defend a person accused of murder even if the legal team believes that murder is a bad thing and should be discouraged. The legal team's job is to comb through the facts and the law to make certain that there is nothing that would exonerate the accused. The United States Constitution prohibits the government from punishing a person unless it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The legal team must put aside its personal prejudices against murder and concentrate on whether the government has met its obligations before punishing someone.

When a legal team defends a murderer in such a situation, it is not defending murder; it is defending the rights of all citizens to be free from illegal punitive government action. And that is actually good for all of us.

In a civil case, the legal team may be representing a person advancing an unpopular proposition such as prohibiting prayer in a public school. The members of the legal team may all be religious people who believe in prayer, but they also recognize that the First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion. They recognize that this means the government cannot force people to pray in a public school.

In order for that person to properly advance his/her argument, his/her legal team must put aside all personal beliefs in prayer and concentrate on whether the government may legally permit prayer. Prayer cases are almost always tremendously unpopular; but people's rights are not fixed by what is popular. We would have mob rule if that were the case. Most cases that have protected the rights of individuals are usually unpopular. Here, again, the legal team is not declaring that prayer is bad. It is upholding the Constitutional restriction against government establishing a religion.

No lawyer is required to take on a case he/she has personal problems with that would interfere with his/her professional obligation to zealously represent the client. But if no lawyers took on unpopular cases or could not see through to the real issue, we might not enjoy many of the rights that we enjoy today.

So, without a doubt, if our system of government by law and not by whim is to work, we must have legal teams that are willing and able to put aside their personal beliefs and work diligently on unpopular cases and issues.

Answer 2

Yes, the American system of law relies on legal professionals to set aside personal beliefs and provide competent representation to clients, even in unpopular cases. This duty stems from the ethical obligation to advocate for client interests within the bounds of the law, regardless of personal opinions or ideologies. Failure to adhere to this principle can undermine the fairness and integrity of the legal system.