11 Answers

Prosecutor,  and hope to put a few dangerous criminals away. Expect some soft judge would probably give them soft sentence. 

Ducky

That sure does happen sometimes.

I probably would be both, you can do this if you are not employed by a large "firm" and can pick and choose your own cases, I wouldn't be comfortable representing someone I knew for sure was guilty ,and I would hope that my intelligence and moral integrity would help me make the right choices( all in an ideal world I suppose).

Ducky

I didn't know that you could be both. Maybe that's the way it should consistently be.

Ducky

Okay, maybe I WILL open a law firm. :)

The prosecutor, proving “beyond a reasonable doubt” intrigues me……...

Ducky

Me too....intriguing I mean.

There is no way I could present a quality defense for someone I knew to be guilty, or didn't trust to be telling me the truth.  Likewise, the pressure and intensity of prosecuting is not something I'd want to do. 

Family law would be my primary interest.   Unfortunately, I am being exposed to family law custody issues through 2 of my 3 sons.  I would be a child advocate, not matter which parent I represented.  

Right this minute, if I were an attorney, I would sue the last shirt off my nasty sister's back. She has libeled me in a court document and slandered me all over our personal community of family and friends.  She has destroyed the relationship I had with my nephew, cost me thousands of dollars in attorney fees, and proved to my sons that she IS the hag they always suspected. 

Ducky

Family squabbles.....horrible, hurtful and exhausting. :((

If it were a criminal case then prosecution. Personally I don't like defence lawyers they let murderers rapists and all sorts of crooks back out on the street.

Ducky

I agree except....what about a prosecutor who is so good at his/her job, that innocent people are sent to prison? It happens.

The legal/moral system should be subjectively taught from birth up...historically to present and integrated with all cultural systems. "Do to others as you would have done to you" is a omni-present ordered rule of conduct.  Prosecution and defense are interpreted as factual evidence presented as viewpoints to jurors to decide who is guilty or not guilty. The facts as presented by 2 lawyers, who may not may not be equally qualified, weighs heavily on the result. A well mannered, admirable, articulate prosecutor with years of experience versus a novice public defender is a ticket to some jail time. Surely you didn't think our legal system is fair, with more people in jail than any other country on the planet...did you? Our legal system is a crime and I will not support it.    

Ducky

It CAN'T be fair when there are innocent people in prisons (later proven innocent by DNA) yet people like O.J. get off, due to a whole team of highly paid and highly skilled lawyers.

Neither. I deal with lawyers on a regular basis in my line of work and I concur with Don Henly's Shakespearean reference...

"The more I think about it, Old Billy was right Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight."

Ducky

Most, not all, do have a tendency to be arrogant.

Ducky

Maybe self-absorbed would have been a better choice of word than arrogance.

.... I would follow the facts

....as a defense attorney , I would starve

Neither. I would be a litigator. More money there. :)

I would to do defence,i would hope the person i defended was innocent,but if not,it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond doubt the persons guilt..then if found guilty,it would mean i am a bad defence lawyer or the person is guilty,and so justice is done..>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<..

Pursuant to the question, a specific answer is being requested, prosecute or defend. That said, I'll deviate and say "neither". In the US, the justice system is a joke. I have sued the Federal Government, was 100% right on the evidence and the law, and the judge considered me to be guilty, based upon a statement he made, before even one word of testimony was given in the case. I lost. I have also sued a municipality; the judges were prejudicial and/or they didn't read the submissions and/or understand what were very simple cases. Lastly, the more people I meet, the more I think that the average person is stupid, and that carries over to the jury pool. I could be in a room with 100's of prospective jurors, and when instructions are given, there is mass confusion. If they can't follow simple directions, I wouldn't want them judging me, be it a simple or complicated case.