What EXACTLY does a solicitor advise?

I was wondering that when arrested for a watertight case, why does a solicitor advise their client to go ';No Comment'; on interview when surely the suspect knows he/she will cop a charge and go to court?





Does the offender not realise that the solicitor is only doing it so their practise can claim more money from the system for prolonging the inevitable, knowing their client, who they have ';Their best interests at heart'; is going to be foind guilty?





Personally I love a 'No comment' interview as you know the offender has been mislead and you can cover all bases!What EXACTLY does a solicitor advise?
By not commenting on things you are preventing yourself from saying anything incrimmidating against yourself.What EXACTLY does a solicitor advise?
Cause they are there to protect the accused and its the prosecution's job to prove the charge is relevant and there is sufficent evidence to prove beyond all doubt that the accused is guilty.





To be honest a lot of defense agents tell their clients to plead guilty, but clients don't take any notice cause their always wasted on the kit.
Lawyers tell clients not to talk to police. Once you make a statement you can't take it back and you can't come up with an alternative story come trial time. It is always better for police to ';nail'; down a version of the suspects story.





The very fact that he/she is admitting they were there, that they had a conversation/arguement, that there was physical contact between the parties involved is something the police can use.





For example: If you are accused of threatening someone in the park and there is only the victim as a witness, if you tell the police that you were there, spoke to the victim but did not threaten him/her, this will keep you from coming up with an alibi later on that you were at home the whole time and couldn't have been at the park.
totally agree
No such thing as a water tight case.





The police are advised of a no comment interview before it starts, this is normal practise,





It is often better to present evidence at court than answer questions designed to trip up and confuse the suspect.





the police pursue it because they try and break the suspect by browbeating, but a good brief will stop this.
I am sure you are right .





Maybe I am being cynical but I don't agree with those who say all solicitors simply have their clients interests at heart. Could it be that no comment interviews are easier for the solicitor at the Police Station (less notes!) and that they extend the length of time the solicitor spends on the defence so they earn more money?
i think somebody has already mentioned it, but


It generally serves a case better to present the defence evidence at court, rather than give an admission in interview.





Ive done loads of interviews where the suspect has been caught bang to rights, and yet i get the tapes on, and he goes


';NO COMMENT';,


but the solicitor has more time to view the case check legal precedent and really see if they may be able to put a defence or a mitigating circumstance forward.





If they cant then they can still go reduced sentance for early guilty plea at the first hearing. It's a win win situation.





Unless they know a caution is on the table, then they'll let the client bite.
They say it's not whether you're innocent or guilty, but how much justice you can afford. I'm sure there's a few good solicitors and in America, lawyers, but they must be rare.





They work in a small legal society within their community. If they really go out of their way to fight your case without a boat load of money, they muddy the water in their creek.





They will tell you whatever they think you'll believe to get your money and then when it comes down to it, sell you out. If more people had small tape recorders, perhaps we could hold the legal community to accounts.