Nubbin Paul C.

Lagumbay
I

I have always found that mercy bears

richer fruits than strict justice.

Abraham Lincoln
The Practice: Detecting Legal Issues

Defense attorney Bobby Donnell faces a hard case, that is, defending his client Rachel
Reynolds, 17 years old lady who charged with drug possession. She asserts that she is neither a
dealer nor a user but was trying only to cover for her brother. The prosecution however holds
strong evidence against her. As a compromise, the prosecution offered to give her a minimum
penalty of 10 months imprisonment (later on reduced to 4 months). Mr. Donnell tried to persuade
his client to plead guilty so as to avail the compromise because a trial conviction would take 15
years away of her life. However, Miss Reynolds was resolved to prove her innocence and thus
would not agree to plea on something which she did not do. Mr. Bobby felt the truthfulness of
her clients cry and thus endeavors to prove her innocence.
In a legal system which concedes only to competent evidence it is common to hear that
it is not what you know but what you can prove in court. Admittedly, some things, despite how
truthful they are, get scant consideration in court because of lack of evidence. Rachel Reynolds
case testifies to this reality. Hence, the question, as a lawyer, who is visualized as priest of
justice, would you concede to the legal systems strict procedure or risk to lose the case in your
cause to fight for the truth?
The answer is not simple. In reality, situations when evidences are not present or at least
lacking seem a hopeless fight. This issue is prevalent in the Philippines whose technology is
behind, court dockets are clogged, and corruption is present within the system itself. In general,
justice seems hard earned available only to privileged few who can sustain the cause of litigation
and avail competent counsels.
Mr. Donnell choose to fight for the truth. Despite his inclinations to take the easy and
risk-free way, but because of his clients protest, he is pushed to a difficult trial with most
evidences against him.

A lawyer, in Mr. Donnells position, is clearly in great disadvantage but I believe takes a
nobler stance. No lawyer who is absorbed with his success rate would risk his reputation just a
fight a losing case. Hence, Mr. Donnell deserves commendation in making a difference.
Indeed, Mr. Donnell stood faithful to his duty as a lawyer to (defend) a person accused
of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the
accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived
of life or liberty, but by due process of law.
As a law student, Mr. Donnells conviction is inspiring. The legal system may not be
perfect. It has plenty of flaws and lapses but it is an excuse anyone to give in to injustice not at
least without a fight. After all, we are surrounded by imperfect people, imperfect things, and
living in an imperfect world but because of these, we are forced to learn these lessons over and
over again and consequently becomes wiser each day.