Reading Comprehension

PT116 · S4 · P1 · Q2 Defense Lawyers

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Is it necessary for defense lawyers to believe that the clients they defend are innocent of the charges against them?

Topic

Do defense lawyers need to believe their clients are innocent? What ethical limits or responsibilities should guide their defense?

Framework

Challenge Position

Main Point

The passage challenges the view that defense lawyers should provide the best possible defense regardless of their client’s guilt, arguing instead that lawyers have a dual obligation: they should not present falsehoods to the court or defend clients they know to be guilty as if they were innocent. Instead, lawyers should strive for honest advocacy based on the facts and present extenuating circumstances where appropriate. (The key pivot and main point appears at the start of P2: )

P1: Standard View – Lawyers as Pure Advocates

Some legal scholars argue that a lawyer's only job is to offer the best possible defense, regardless of their personal belief about the client's guilt. According to this view, it's the court's job to determine guilt or innocence, and the lawyer’s role is to advocate for their client using any available facts and legal arguments, not to act on their own opinions.

P2: Author’s Critique – Lawyers Owe Courts (and Society) Honesty

The author pushes back, saying that this approach ignores another big responsibility lawyers have: serving the court and society, not just their clients. Lawyers shouldn’t make arguments they know are false, nor should they work to prove a known-guilty client is innocent. Instead, if a lawyer knows their client is guilty, they should focus on presenting extenuating circumstances and arguing for fair sentencing, not false acquittal. If the lawyer isn’t sure about guilt, but sincerely believes in the client’s innocence, they can argue innocence.

P3: How Honest Advocacy Ultimately Benefits All

Lawyers who fulfill their duties to court and society—by taking cases they truly believe in and advocating honestly—end up serving their clients best. The passage emphasizes that lawyers aren't supposed to accept every single case and simply parrot what a client wants, but should provide real advocacy based on the actual merits of the case.

2.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the author's attitude toward the twofold obligation introduced in the first sentence of the second paragraph?

  1. confident that it enables defense

    Wrong Balance

    This is a sneaky, tempting trap answer. We might think it's weird to say that the "twofold obligation enables defense lawyers to balance their competing responsibilities", because the twofold obligation is their competing responsibilites. Also, the two "folds" of that twofold obligation are 1. Defendant 2. Court (and by extension, societ) This answer is acting like the two prongs are 1. Court 2. Society Finally, the first sentence of the final paragraph makes it seem like these are not competing responsibilities at all: "the lawyer's obligation to court/society ultimately benefits the defendant". That doesn't sound like a zero sum tradeoff. It sounds like connected responsibilities but not necessarily competing ones.

    56% picked this

  2. certain that it prevents defense

    Too Strong: certain

    The author never gives any indication that she holds the extreme idea that this twofold obligation is 100% successful at preventing defense lawyers from representing guilty clients. She's not even opposed to representing clients known to be guilty. The twofold obligation doesn't forbid that. It just says, "If you know they're guilty, don't try to argue for innocence or lie on the client's behalf."

    12% picked this

  3. satisfied that it helps defense

    Unsupported Relationship

    There's no way to connect balancing responsibilities to defendant and court/society with "doing a better job at uncovering the facts of the case".

    5% picked this

  4. pleased that it does not

    Out of Scope: common defense strategies

    The author never labels any defense strategy "a common one", nor does she connect the twofold obligation to a common strategy. She believes that the twofold obligation should interfere with the defense strategy of arguing that a client who is known to be guilty is actually innocent.

    1% picked this

  5. Correct

    convinced that it does not

    Why this is right

    This is tricky to find the support for, since it's far away from where the twofold obligation is first brought up, but the first sentence of the final paragraph makes it seem like these two obligations are not a conflict of interest: "the lawyer's obligation to court/society ultimately benefits the defendant".

    Skill tested: Author's Attitude · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    25% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free