Lawyer hammered? The comment area applauded, exonerating unscrupulous developers, should it be hammered? Can the voice in the comment section represent justice?
Recently, the lawyer defended the unscrupulous developer not guilty, and was hammered by the owner of the unfinished building.
Some people say that the owner of the unfinished building is too pitiful, he paid the money, the house can't be obtained, and he has to be tried by a righteous lawyer in court, which is too unjust!
Some people retort that a lawyer is just a profession to make a living, and he just supports and sympathizes with the owners of unfinished buildings, but the developer does not pay to continue to build, and the house still has to be unfinished?
………
Just because of this incident, I had an argument with my boss in the office, and the boss thinks that the hammer is ignorant, and I don't agree with him. I told him a sentence in Article 2 of the General Provisions of the Lawyers Law: "Lawyers should safeguard the lawful rights and interests of their clients, safeguard the correct implementation of the law, and safeguard social fairness and justice." Therefore, this matter should be viewed in two parts, if this lawyer helped or taught the unfinished party to provide false evidence or testimony, then this lawyer is not worthy of sympathy if he is hammered.
If this lawyer only defends the unfinished building party normally, it is indeed the fool of the hammer. Of course, as human beings, any extreme hurtful behavior is wrong and should be opposed.
Everyone understands that if the house is unfinished, the buyer should not be allowed to continue to pay, and the contract should be terminated and the buyer should be compensated for the economic loss. Banks should sue developers, not buyers. Otherwise, where can we talk about fairness and justice?
I think the legal profession should reflect on it. Lawyers should not become litigants, should not help lawbreakers evade legal punishment, and should conduct different defenses according to law based on factual and wrong, so that the parties will not be wronged. Banks cannot evade responsibility for bank loans that are not supervised in accordance with regulations and lend in violation of regulations. If the developer fails, the banks behind it are equally responsible. Why should the bank sue the borrower who is a victim and is not at fault.
Pat the conscience and ask, is it? Does the legal profession really think that unfinished buildings are not the fault of developers, banks and certain regulatory authorities?
Let's talk about it, right? The lawyer is wronged, and the man is even more wronged! I bought an unfinished building with my life's savings, and the house is gone, and I have to pay back a lot of the remaining money! You don't speak up for the vulnerable, you don't hammer anyone...
Look at the voices of the masses on the Internet, many people call them the hammer of justice, and public opinion should make people in all aspects reflect on it.
Otherwise, lawyers could really become a high-risk profession?