HI everyone, I’m applying for a gap year internship at a law firm in birmingham in England. One of the questions on the application form is
“An existing client wishes you to represent them in a matter where they are likely to lose their case. You have advised them of this, however, they are adamant that they wish to continue. What would you do?”
Not sure what they’re looking for in this answer.
Any suggestions on how to answer this would be greatly appreciated 
Depends upon the case. If the case is a just case, work your butt off to try and win. If it is frivolous then do not accept the case.
Thanks for your advice
You’re getting paid either way, right?
Anyway, I think the key thing is “existing client.” Buisnesses prefer to retain their clients instead of losing them. So then, I guess the best you could strive for is to get the client the best of the bad. Damage limitations and all that.
Yeh, I’m not a lawyer, as you can probably tell. Good luck though.
“What would you do?” – The job. If you’ve advised them against pursuing a case you think they will lose and they still want to proceed, you take their money and lose their case. Not on purpose, of course.
Yes, I agree on that “existing client” part of the question. Your company represents them in court and that’s the companies job to protect the clients interests. Advise them, firstly due to the ethics of law and as to the pros and cons of the probability of losing the case, i.e. costs, compensation, media exposure etc. Having the clients best interests also sometimes called “damage limitation”.
Then should you not ask yourself if you can work for a firm that screws their clients? If I was a client I would prefer honesty over ego salve and empty pockets.
Honesty? The honesty is in telling them they aren’t going to win the case. The service then is in getting as lenient a sentence as possible. I can’t see where the “screwing” is taking place.
Uum prison time? How many law firms have existing clients that repeatedly are facing prison? If it is prison then of you argue for leniency but, then money comes in, how do you collect? Is it worth your time or the firm’s time. You do have a criminal on your hands. Perhaps sending them to a court appointed lawyer would be best for all.
Hire Keanu Reeves.
In the US, your only duty is to provide adequate defense. Not every case can be won, but every client is entitled to council. So you represent the case the best you can and you remain honest with your client. Also, make him pay up front. Then your duties and obligations are filled, and you have nothing left to think about. That’s the great thing about the law. You don’t have to think about it. You just do what it says.
Oh sure Smears just yank the fun ethical and moral arguments right out from under us…thats not fun…
Ethics is like a math problem. The answer is always right in front of you, and it’s always certain.
1+1=2
The laws add up. 
I know that but, arguing it is of value for education and it can be entertaining
If you’re just trying to put your brain on a treadmill, then ponder the question “which is true, dualism or monism?” or “which is real, universals or particulars?”.
Both are true. Both are real
I assert that they are by definition mutually exclusive, and I contend that the evidence is as plain as can be and such that no further explanation can be given.
Now you gotta make up some inductive tale of how universals and particulars don’t exclude one another by definition and explain how they can coexist.
Particular universes. Job done.
Well if you look at their definitions you will find that niether can exist without the other. You cannot have universals without particulars and particulars without universals. A particular is universal wether you use it or accept it or not. By all accepting a definition of a particular it is a universal.