Lawyers : Prawin.

January 27, 1969. Prawin traveled to Bangkok to file a lawsuit in the case of procurement fraud associated with telegraph poles. On 30 January 1969 Prawin was the only attorney in Chiang Mai who worked the as same as the lawyers working in Bangkok. He preferred to hire young lawyers with no experience to work for him. On December 4, 1969 Dr. Pentip said that there were not many lawyers in Chiang Mai. Because of this, a lawyer conducted many cases and so that he was often seen at the court. It was quite opposite of lawyers in Bangkok who were paid more, and were seen less often at the court.

Lawyers.

February 22, 1969. Moerman interviewed Bodin to summarize his life history, beginning before his career as a lawyer. Bodin had a career as a teacher. Then he talked about the brokerage business for sub-district chiefs, village headmen and those who had been drifting in the courts. These groups would take clients to meet with attorneys and then charge for commission from the clients or lawyers.

Lawyers Bodin interviews Sutham.

March 12. Sutham possessed a law firm in Phrae province. The major reason he chose a career as lawyer was because there were no locals working as a lawyer in Phrae. As a local, such lawyers could understood the issues and the languages. Moerover, he thought that process of investigation and arrest of the accused should be split in order to prevent the police from graft.

Lawyers Sunan Jingsang at Phrae.

March 13, 1969. Moerman interviewed Sunan, summarizing his life history and work. He did not have much work experience, which was the reason Uthum might supervise and assist in writing lawsuits. Personally, he thought that the process of investigation should be separate from the work of the police, and there should be another organization which took care of the investigation. Both sides could then monitor each other.

Lawyers. M.R.W. Carernsuk.

February 21, 1969. Badin interviewed with M.R.W. Charernsuk about his life history and his work, such as a fortune-teller defrauded, or the case of a car crash. There were three kinds of clients: 1) Those who were brokers and filed a case for him (for instance sub-district chiefs, village headmen), he had to pay a commission to these people of about 30% of the case fee; 2) Those who came to meet him on their own, most of these people came to him by word of mouth; 3) Those who happened to meet him at the court. Otherwise, employees at the court also served as brokers such as the first group. Personally, he was of the opinion that the process of investigation should be excluded from the process of arrest, because officials who arrested the accused could also construct false evidence in order to be consistent with the allegations.

Lawyers. Bodin interview Sithon Inthrawut.

February 20, 1969. Bodin interviewed Sithon about his life history and work. The interview focused on the income he received from his lawsuits.

Interview with Marut, president of the Thai Bar Association.

February 4, 1969. Marut served as President of the Thailand Association of the Bar. He expectation for the association was that it should be social meeting between the judge and lawyers, because the two groups were in conflict. In the opinion of Marut, processing of lawsuits was both scientific and rhetorical. A good lawyer knew when questions should be asked, what should be asked, and when the questioning should stop.

Lawyers. Bodin interviews Panalamphun.

February 20, 1969. Bodin interviewed Pan about his life history and previous work, including the case of a murdered student and his girlfriend who robbed a motorcycle. According to Pan, judges should be investigators because the police just wanted to arrest defendants and to file the lawsuits without ensuring whether that the accused was not innocent. In the opinion of Bodin, Pan was rather boastful.

Lawyers. Bodin talkd to Damrong Romphol.

February 19, 1969. Badin interviewed Damrong about his life history and previous work. According to Damrong, the processing of a lawsuit required the tactic of retort for parties in the courts. He also helped both parties to compromise with each other. There were two types of clients: 1) People by recommendation of his friends and 2) People who directly contacted him. In the case of those who came by brokers (by sub-district chiefs and headmen), he needed to pay a commission, but the precise amount depended on the case.