body: Question: How can an advocate lend his exertions to all, while lending himself to none: this appears a logical contradiction? Lending exertions to all logically, implies 'lending something of oneself to all'. 
  
  
  Secondary Source: p. 96 Top, [*Is Killing People Right?*](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/is-killing-people-right/BFEF1D0B685077D498DE902A67A0AB50) (2016) by Allan C. Hutchinson.
  
  
  
  > 
  > Indeed, the mantra of the defence bar is that they 'lend their exertions to all, and themselves to none.'
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  Primary Source: 
  
  
  
  > 
  > Brennan J considered the proper role of counsel in an adversarial context in *Giannarelli v Wraith* (1988) 165 CLR 543 at 578-79:
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > > 
  > > Counsel (whether barrister or solicitor) may appear to represent the adversaries, but counsel’s duty is to assist the court in the doing of justice according to law. A client - and perhaps the public - may sometimes think that the primary duty of counsel in adversary proceedings is to secure a judgment in favour of the client. Not so. The true position was stated by Lord Eldon in *Ex parte Lloyd* (5 November 1822, reported as a note in *Ex parte Elsee* (1830) Mont. 69, at p. 70n., at p. 72):
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > > 
  > > > **He lends his exertions to all, himself to none. [Bold mine]** The result of the cause is to him a matter of indifference. It is for the court to decide. It is for him to argue. He is, however he may be represented by those who understand not his true situation, merely an officer assisting in the administration of justice, and acting under the impression, that truth is best discovered by powerful statements on both sides of the question.
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  
title: How is this not a logical contradiction: 'He lends his exertions to all, himself to none.'?