In the 2019 movie "Badla" (spoilers ahead), Naina was accused of committing a murder in the UK, and her trial is in London. She denies the accusation. Her clever lawyer Badal arrives and they have a three hour conversation going over all the details of the past events, coming up with different theories about the real culprit - and throughout it, Badal slowly gains her trust. He eventually manages to get Naina to confess that yes, she did in fact commit the murder. Including how she did it and where she hid the body.

Badal leaves the scene and five minutes later the *real* Badal arrives! The fake Badal was actually Nirmal, the father of the murder victim, who of course recorded the whole conversation including the confession. He calls the police, and the credits roll.

It's a compelling movie but this struck me. Nirmal was deceiving Naina by impersonating a lawyer, which is a crime. But he had nothing to lose, he wanted to get justice for his dead son. And because he is not a police officer or official part of the prosecution in any way, this evidence wouldn't be inadmissible for being bad police practise, I would think ([this question][1] says that the police cannot impersonate a lawyer to gain evidence, but Nirmal is not police). But if such a confession would be admissible in court, then why don't more people pretend to be lawyers?


  [1]: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/8542/can-police-trick-you-into-a-confession-by-pretending-to-be-a-lawyer