Is it permitted for Jewish lawyers to defend those they believe to be guilty?

Question

I am in (secular) law school and am exploring my professional options. One of those options is to become a criminal defence attorney.

In my country of residence, attorneys qualified in a specific area of law are forbidden from rejecting clients on the basis that they are notorious or highly suspected of being guilty. If I am approached by a potential client who is able to pay my standard rate, and I am physically available to defend the person and am knowledgable in the relevant area of law, I am legally required to defend the individual.

Thus, it is possible that I would be legally required to defend someone who has violated one of the Noachide laws, etc. It is possible that in doing so, someone who I suspect is guilty would be acquitted on the basis of issues with the prosecution, in accordance with the laws of my country of residence. Although it is unlawful for me to lie in court, if a client who I suspect is guilty claims he is innocent, I would be required to try to make that case to the best of my ability.

What are my obligations in regards to Halacha, if I were to become a criminal defence attorney? I am aware that as a Jew I am required to distance myself from untruth, etc. Am I permitted to defend such people? What if, for example, such a person has clearly violated a Noachide law or harmed a Jew, but could be acquitted as a result of the prosecution having illegally obtained all of the evidence?

Answer 1

Whether your client is actually guilty or not, should be immaterial.

When defending a person in secular court, your job is to make sure to hold the prosecution to the prevalent laws of the land, and require it to prove its case against the defendant, in court, and beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you can do so, without saying any untruth, then you should be able to take the case. You can always say, "The defendant claims...", which is not that you're vouching for its veracity, just that your presenting his claim to the court.

One source - see #10

Note #5 - in the name of Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein

Answer 2

In Rambam's Mishneh Torah Hilchos Sanhedrin chapter 26 halacha 7, it says the following:

7

When any person has a judgment adjudicated by gentile judges and their courts, he is considered a wicked person. It is as if he disgraced, blasphemed, and lifted up his hand against the Torah of Moses our teacher. This applies even if their laws are the same as the laws of the Jewish people. This is indicated by Exodus 21:1: "These are the judgments that you shall place before them." "Before them" and not before gentiles; "before them" and not before ordinary people.

The following procedure should be carried out if the gentiles have a powerful law enforcement system and the opposing litigant is a stubborn and powerful person from whom one cannot expropriate property through the judicial system of the Jewish people. One should summon him before the Jewish judges first. If he did not desire to come, one may receive license from the court and salvage one's property from the litigant by having the case tried in a gentile court.

it seems pretty clear that if even bringing a case to non-jewish court is problematic, for sure defending someone in it without legitimate cause. However, in the second paragraph of the above-quoted Rambam, as well as in the Shulchan Aruch Chosen Mishpat chapter 26 it says that there is at least one case where it's permitted to go to secular court:

היתה יד עכו"ם תקיפה ובעל דינו אלם ואינו יכול להציל ממנו בדייני ישראל יתבענו לדייני ישראל תחלה אם לא רצה לבא נוטל רשות מב"ד ומציל בדיני עכו"ם מיד בעל דינו: הגה ויש רשות לב"ד לילך לפני עכו"ם ולהעיד שזה חייב לזה (בה"ת בשם ר' שרירא) וכל זה דוקא כשאינו רוצה להיות ציית דין אבל בלא"ה אסור לב"ד להרשות לדון לפני עכו"ם (מהרי"ק שורש א'):

so perhaps in that one case alone it would be ok