I don't want to understand the emotions of a lying liar that lies

Mark Bennett is posting about the "empathetic lawyer" again.

"an empathetic lawyer has empathy for everyone. A compassionate lawyer has compassion for all"

What I want to know is this: How do you have compassion for an accuser who lies about your client sexually assaulting them? How do you empathize with the cop that invents the probable cause for his traffic stop out of thin air? The answer is…YOU DON’T!! The only thing you should feel for that person is contempt for trying to pervert justice.

Mark goes on to talk about who he would want to represent him if he were ever charged in a case he posits:

"I suspect that if I were accused of a crime I would (all else being equal) not want a lawyer who was defending people to turn a buck...I would want the lawyer who could best discover and tell the story that would clear my name, and I would want her to be relentless in the pursuit of my freedom. I suspect that this would be a lawyer who cared about me. "

That is fine for Mark, but what do you mean by "all else being equal"? I don't want all else to be equal. I want to know, first and foremost, who is most capable and skilled attorney to defend me in my unique situation. If there is a need to challenge a search warrant, I would want the attorney to have an encyclopedic grasp of the law.  If there was a liar making an accusation against me, I don't want someone who is going to identify with them, I want someone who is going to eviscerate their story. If the case against me is impervious to attack, I want the attorney that has credibility with judge when it comes time for sentencing. A good defense attorney has the versatility to wear all those hats.

That is what I was trying to convey when I talked about practicing with integrity instead of empathy. If you do everything with consistent personal standards, you will serve your client best. Judges will trust you. Juries will see you as an honest advocate for your client. You don't have to beat people up on the witness stand unless they deserve it...and sometimes they deserve it.

When I hear Mark talk about this I can't help but get a one-dimensional view of how the "empathetic lawyer" practices. The first and foremost concern seems to be identifying with emotional motivation of the opposition. The truth is, emotions HAVE to be controlled in criminal defense cases. They can't always be on the forefront of your approach to a case. A defense attorney needs to be able to adapt and be versatile. If your first concern is always an empathetic inventory, you are not being flexible and your client will suffer.

There is a time and a place for emotion, but there are also times when you turn your plowshares into swords; there are cases where you HAVE TO go to war.  When you do, do want an "empathetic" champion, or a "ruthless" one?

After making my first draft of this post I read Scott Greenfield's take at Simple Justice. I think he hits the nail squarely in the head when he says:

But why must clients settle for the one dimensional lawyer?  Why can't the lawyer be empathetic toward his clients, yet aggressive in his representation?  Why can't the lawyer have a bullet in each chamber of his six-shooter to cover the full panoply of situations, ready to be cooperative when appropriate, ruthless when necessary and everything in between in response to the needs of the case and situation?

Truer words were never spoken.