Hi Anonymous,

I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I wanted to consult with a Catholic lawyer friend of mine.

You said that your father "will represent his clients to the court as completely innocent, even if they have admitted to him that they are guilty of the crime." I suspect what you are referring to is that he has his clients "plead not guilty". This is not the same as "representing . . . to the court as completely innocent". 

In order to understand this, you have to know a bit about the legal system in the United States (I am assuming you are in the United States). The court system in the U.S. is an adversarial one. This means that there are two opposing sides involved (in criminal cases, this is the government, typically the state, and the defendant). Each side presents evidence for their position and attempts to cross-examine the evidence of the other side to find weaknesses in it. The idea is that the truth will surface from the competition between the two sides. In the U.S., we have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty; it is incumbent on the government to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if they cannot, the defendant goes free.

The defendant in a case (for example, a criminal case) enters what's called a plea. In law, a plea is a defendant's response to a formal criminal charge. It is not an assertion of fact, and  no one in the court believes that it is. To plead 'not guilty' means you are exercising your right to compel the government to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in court. To plead 'guilty' means you are waiving your right to a trial and accepting responsibility for the crime, thereby accepting the punishment. So, if you want to exercise your constitutional right to a trial, the correct legal course of action is to plead 'not guilty'. This is not a lie, because everyone understands what that means within the legal framework. It's perfectly normal, and expected, for people who did commit a crime to plead 'not guilty'. Think of it as legalese with a specific technical meaning.

Think of satirical news. Satirical news sites such as The Onion and the Babylon Bee are not lying, because it is well known that these are satire sites and that their articles are meant to imitate news while being funny and amusing. If the New York Times published a Babylon Bee article on the front page without attribution, then there would be a problem, because it's presented as fact.

Or think of a relationship you may have with a friend where you can say things to one another that to an outsider would sound like an insult, but it isn't because of the context of the friendship.

So, in the context of the U.S. legal framework, pleading "not guilty" when you've committed the crime is not a lie.

You then go on, "Additionally, he will employ strategies, like pulling up pictures of the clients family members and pointing out how they look similar, in order to attempt to show that the court can’t tell who it really was behind the vehicle and therefore can’t prosecute anyone. Both of these are lying in court and are illegal."

This is what a defense lawyer in the U.S. court system does. He attempts to cast doubt on the prosecutor's evidence by exposing vulnerabilities in their case; it's just the way the system is intended to work. I expect your father is not saying,

"It wasn't my client, it was his brother",

which would be perjury (lying in court), rather he is asserting

"You cannot legally prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this video shows my client, because the evidence you've presented is insufficient to establish guilt, for these reasons".

That would not be a lie. The whole job of a defense lawyer is to cast doubt on the evidence presented by the prosecution. Asking questions or questioning evidence is not perjury.

You'd be surprised at some of the sleazy and illegal things that go on the side of the prosecution and police. There is a morally legitimate need to protect a client from these tactics, even if they are guilty, as you note. Even the guilty have rights. Some evidence, even if it is true, is not presentable in court.

I don't know your father or what he says in court. I will suggest that perhaps some things get lost in translation, so to speak. I'd give your father the benefit of the doubt. 

I don't think you should "confront" your father.

• Rather, I would be conversational,
• show an interest in what he does,
• ask him to explain how the legal system works,
• ask honest (but not accusatory) questions that are on your mind about the legal system and how it works.
• Avoid anything personal, like,

• "Why did you say this in this case?".

It's fair to say,

"I struggle with understanding how lawyers justify defending people they know are guilty" or ask,

• "How do you handle a situation when your client tells you a fact, and the prosecution presents that very fact in court and you have to defend against it?"

You could ask him what he finds most difficult to do as a defense attorney.

• Treat it as a relaxed, father-son learning experience, not as a confrontation or accusation.
• Watch your tone.
• Be sure you can accomplish this with the attitude of a docile and eager (or maybe puzzled) student.
• If you feel yourself starting to get emotionally worked up, just end the conversation. 

Ultimately, even if your father is not doing what is moral, you are not responsible for him; he is responsible for himself. It is not your place to directly correct him.

Love your father, treat him respectfully, and honor him, and hopefully you can forge a closer relationship by exploring his world.

Eric