Sure, I'd agree if he were some other lawyer who happened to pick the case randomly. But in his case, most of them were famous and controverdial cases. why is that ? Isn't it obvious that he works only for money, not for justice! I agree that sometimes a lawyer has to believe whatever his client relates him a story in order to win the case, it all depends on lawyer's discretion & how it is perceived. In Mr. Jethmalani's case it is more evident that he plays with the loop holes that he could find in our Judiciary System than a fair argument (Please see the arguments he had made in the case of Jessica Lall, there were numerous instances of argument shuffle, every day). Having such a vast experience in the fields of law, which is certainly undisputed, that too more than 50 years as a leading advocate, he would be honored more than a Judge. Defending such cases would not really suit his stature. At one point, he hypocritically said to Mr. Thappar '... don't insult Indian Judicial System by saying advocates play tricks ... ' . I am terribly confused :)
Whoever reads this thread, please take it as a debate only. From the depths of my heart, I am not trying to offend anyone, instead learning from you all.
'Let Hundred Guilty Be Acquitted But One Innocent Should Not Be Convicted'