Celebrity Cases – Straining the Legal System?

Celebrity cases are like sweet poison to a lawyer, a forbidden drink that can have catastrophic consequences for the lawyer’s career, while also giving him such a fillip as to propel him to the frontlines of celebrity himself.

It is ironic that lawyers who’ve presided over the cases of celebrities have seen their clients’ star wane, while their own rises (or falls) with the outcome or handling of the case.

Celebrity cases are, in all practicality, the perfect measure of a legal system fairness – the age old adage that justice is blind, weighing truth and lie only on the scales of evidence.

Celebrities with favorable public images (and large fortunes) are usually able to walk away with often serious allegations. A case in point is Martha Stewart, convicted of lying to investigators about a stock sale. If a CFO of a large company was accused of the same crimes as her, he might not have been able to walk away with such a light punishment – Martha suffered only five months in prison. Her favorable public image, it appears, was a crucial element in influencing the decision in her favor.

On the other hand, a celebrity with a bad repo in the public sphere can be severely underhanded when a case comes to trial. Michael Jackson, often disregarded as the “Wacko”, was tried on testimony that was often reluctant, changing, and clearly driven by financial profits. Even though he was cleared of the charges, Jackson’s career (and already withered public image) has yet to make a comeback. More on the impact of celebrity on a trial after the jump…

It is debatable if a defendant’s celebrity is a positive or negative point in a trial. As I said above, the public image of the celebrity can have serious consequences on the outcome of the case; a jury is highly susceptible to the charms of a prominent celebrity with a strong public image.

But where does the lawyer stand in this?

In an ideal scenario, the lawyer would treat his client the same way the law would treat him – with impartiality, as a defendant (or prosecutor), viewing his case without prejudice.

However, in the real world, celebrity cases are high stakes affairs capabale of building and breaking careers. Thrust into the limelight, it can be difficult for an attorney to maintain objectivity. Moreover, attorneys are also susceptible to “celebrity seduction” – believing their client’s testimony at face value without cross examination. If you were Robert Benett representing Bill Clinton, you would have a hard time telling the then President of the United States that “I don’t believe a word you say here, Mr. President”.

Perhaps the hardest part for a lawyer dealing with a celebrity is the deft handling of public opinion. Not only does the lawyer have to manage the trial, but also deal with keeping a firm grip on the public opinion of the trial (and of the celebrity) and avoid letting it sprial out of control – something that could jeopardize both the celebrity and the lawyer’s career.

Celebrity cases, thus, strain the entire judicial system, drawing lines between black and white. Celebrity cases are also an excellent learning source for aspiring and rookie lawyers – noted celebrity lawyers have often found that fine tuned balance between public opinion and professional dexterity – a great skill to learn indeed.