Reading Comprehension

PT116 · S4 · P1 · Q5 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.

5.

The relationship of the information contained in the fourth and fifth sentences of the second paragraph to that in the third sentence of the first paragraph can most accurately be described as

  1. no significant relationship because they

    Contradicted: factual / unrelated

    The first line is a factual statement about someone else's opinion. The second section, though, is definitely an opinion (the author's). And these two snippets are definitely related, since the 2nd one pushes back against the 1st one.

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    the author’s opinion opposing another

    Why this is right

    The 2nd highlighted portion is the author's opinion (should / duty). The 1st one is an opinion reported by the author. The second sentence of the passage introduces the point of view of "some legal scholars", and the 1st highlighted portion is saying "they argue". The last thing to validate in this answer choice is that the 2nd highlight opposes the 1st one. Indeed, it does, as the first one was saying that lawyers have no business judging a defendant's guilt/innocence, whereas the second one is saying "when lawyers judge a defendant to be definitely guilty ...".

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

    72% picked this

  3. a hypothetical situation supporting a

    Opposite: supporting

    It's fair to say the 2nd portion includes a hypothetical situation: "When lawyers know with certainty that a defendant is guilty ..." And it's fair to call the 1st portion a statement (belong to some legal scholars) that's reported by the author. But the 2nd portion doesn't support the 1st portion; it goes against it, since it involves lawyers judging whether or not a defendant is guilty.

    3% picked this

  4. agreement in general with the

    Opposite: general agreement

    The 2nd portion is not in general agreement with the 1st. The 1st portion was saying that lawyers should never be judging the guilt / innocence of their defendants. The 2nd portion is part of a discussion saying, "Yes, they should. And if they judge the client to be definitely guilty, the lawyer should decline the case or represent the client by arguing for a lenient guilty verdict."

    10% picked this

  5. essentially equivalent assertions arising from

    Contradicted: equivalent

    These two portions are definitely not equivalent, since the 1st portion is saying "lawyers shouldn't judge a defendant's guilt / innocence" and the 2nd portion is saying "when a lawyer judges a defendant to be guilty, they shouldn't deny that the defendant is guilty".

    12% 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