There was a general consensus that practitioners ought not to prejudge the guilt of a person accused of crime. Such determinations are the responsibility of the court or tribunal before whom the accusation is made. Courts and tribunals only operate effectively and with manifest impartiality if those who are accused can be properly represented before them. Without such representation the proceedings may be little more than a charade. To secure the rule of law it is necessary to ensure that unpopular individuals are defended to the best of the practitioner's ability.
Popular majorities can generally look after themselves.
The rule of law is tested when the person before the court is a member of an unpopular minority or is accused of heinous crimes. Thus, there was a general consensus that a person accused of a grave crime of genocide was in need of representation which ought not to be denied by legal aid authorities simply because the accused may be guilty or the accusation is specially horrifying. Legal aid authorities must operate on this footing. Two qualifications were mentioned to limit an absolute obligation to accept every case involving a criminal accusation. In the first place, if a practitioner felt personally incapable of puffing the case with the vigor and commitment that is the client's right, that particular practitioner would be personally disqualified.