1. This paper will seek to answer whether cause lawyering helps further the profession’s goal of justice and if, in doing so, it transgresses professional ethical boundaries. In considering the criticisms and justifications for cause lawyering along with its resonance with legal ethical principles, namely that of neutrality, it will conclude that cause lawyers are a useful instrument in driving social change, and should not be tied down to traditional principles as they only hinder their ability to effectively represent clients. 2. Myles Jackman’s crusade appears to be a match for the elite/vanguard approach identified by Hilbink, where the law is viewed as an instrument to bring about social change. By aiming to rewrite the substantive law …show more content…
Although solicitors are not bound to remain neutral in client selection, it is clear that the “cab rank rule”, which barristers abide by, has had extensive influence in the legal profession as solicitors rarely refuse to act for a client. Cause lawyers can therefore be viewed as transgressing legal cultural norms by encouraging client selection and straying from the principle of neutrality. This can be seen in that Jackman actively seeks, and sometimes chases clients whose cases hold the potential to advance his cause. Those in favour of neutrality argue that by over identifying with clients, particularly unpopular clients, the profession’s image risks being tarnished as these clients fail to be provided with “the professional good of detached advice”. This is because professional norms dictate that lawyers should keep a reasonable distance from the client, in order to keep any negative image associated with less popular clients from shifting to the lawyer, and consequently threatening the profession’s legitimacy. However, one limitation with this argument is that single client employment is generally accepted with little dismay, whereas cause lawyers, and particularly private practitioners, are cast in a negative light should they select clients. Boon contests that this justified on the basis that an employed lawyer’s right to select clients is acknowledged by rule, whereas this freedom is not extended to private practice cause lawyers. Still, this defence ignores the …show more content…
Perhaps the legal profession should adopt an understanding of the standard conception based upon David Lubon’s, where he suggests that one’s responsibilities under the standard conception are not absolute. Rather, they are dependent upon the effectiveness of the adversary system. In this way, Jackman is correct to ‘transgress’ the generally accepted legal ethical norms in situations where the adversary system is failing the public, such as when Andrew Holland was wrongly persuaded to accept a guilty plea. It appears that Jackman applied Luban’s alternative model of legal ethics by convincing Holland to pursue a more just course of action. In these instances, a lawyer’s exertion of moral influence should be viewed as necessary to offset the power imbalance between the claimant and defendant and, thus furthering the profession’s goal of
Criticisms of lawyers are the topic in Richard A. Wasserstrom's article "Lawyers as Professionals: Some Moral Issues." Wasserstrom broke this topic into two main areas of discussion. The first suggests that lawyers operate with essentially no regard for any negative impact of their efforts on the world at large. Analysis of the relationship that exists between the lawyer and their client was the second topic of discussion. "Here the charge is that it is the lawyer-client relationship which is morally objectionable because it is a relationship which the lawyer dominates and in which the lawyer typically, and perhaps inevitably, treats the client in both an impersonal and a paternalistic fashion."
Another powerful opinion yearning to be exposed, is the one held by Henry Drummond, the defense’s attorney. The lawyer undoubtedly came to d...
Then, in Jeffrey L. Seglin’s essay, “Just Because It’s Legal, Is It Right?” he reveals his perspective on corporate America. Seglin argues that different sides give way to different views of the law. Then, he goes on to emphasize that laws are just pardon from having to think and do your job right. Seglin then brings up the idea of situational ethics and how it is just used to cover up for people and bl...
The “GIDEON’S ARMY” film documentary follows the personal stories of Travis Williams, Brandy Alexander and June Hardwick, three young public defenders who struggle against extensive working hours, little wage and awe-inspiring caseloads so common that even the most dedicated in the profession frequently give up in their first year of labor. From watching this film it has come to fruition in my mind that only a select few can do what these young men and women put up with on a weekly basis. In the film all three public defenders attempt to provide high quality representation despite the overwhelming odds against them. They all have from top to bottom student loan debt which causes an extraordinary amount of stress to them and other public defenders in the profession. This film was also very depressing. Just from watching this film for a couple of minutes one can get very down on themselves. By the time I was done observing it I had to turn on a more motivational show because the film was really that disheartening. The Stakes were incredibly high for the defendants which faced some of t...
Culver, Keith Charles. Readings in the philosophy of law. 1999. Reprint. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press, 2008. Print.
Being a lawyer requires no personal thoughts and reasons, you can’t discuss the case with others. You always have to follow the rules, and Equality tends to break lots of rules. Although I feel with the situation Equality is in he would agree with Ayn Rand’s short essay, “There is no escape from the fact that men have to make choices; so long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral terms” (paragraph ). But Equality does escape moral terms by leaving and running off to a new life because of the choice he made. When he made the choice to escape his society, he made the choice to start over, and now he couldn’t be more enthused about his choice. Equality can’t help what he feels is unacceptable because the thoughts invade his life and help him to proceed with the choices he
people in these 21st century society wonder, “When is Justice to be done?” For district attorneys,
In her judicial journal, Gray describes that although a social association with an attorney does not necessarily raise reasonable questions about a judge's impartiality, a personal relationship may be so close that the judge is required to disclose the connection when that attorney appears in a case and may even be so significant that the judge is required to disqualify. She states that there is “no easy litmus test” in looking at cases of such manner, many aspects help analyze the relationship involved starting with the nature and degree of their social interaction to the frequency in which a lawyer or an attorney appears before the judge. Yet whatever the nature of the relationship might be, a judge might not be required to disqualify himself from the case, but is forced to disclose the relationship to all interested parties. Even if a judge is confident that he/she can make a rational ruling in a case, the public are not aware of the judge’s subjective feelings, and therefore, the judge must step back and try to evaluate the relationship objectively through other people’s perspective.
I was told that my desire to enter the field of public interest would wane after my first year of community service. On the contrary, the realization of the power which a lawyer possesses has reinforced my desire to enter this arena. An advocate's work can have far reaching consequences. This is clearly true in public interest law, where the purpose is not simply to correct a wrong done in the past between two parties, but to alter the disparate treatment of an often under-represented class.
Ronald Dworkin has become one of the most influential legal philosophers over the last century providing a ‘sophisticated alternative to legal positivism’. Dworkin is a non-orthodox natural law theorist, his account of law centres on his theory of adjudication. A key aspect of adjudication is the concept of Law as Integrity. However, some commentators suggest that Dworkin’s ideal does not reflect the reality of judicial interpretation. In this paper I will outline Dworkin’s ‘law as integrity’ and then highlight some of the criticisms that appear to generate doubt over his writings as a convincing model. I will conclude that whilst his main opponents offer some substantial critiques of Dworkin’s theory of ‘law as integrity’, Dworkin does establish a convincing theory that tries to bridge the gap on judicial discretion that other notable theorists, including H.L.A. Hart, fail to achieve.
Leslie G. Scarman, ‘Codification and Judge-made Law: A problem of co-existence’ [1967] 42(3) Indiana Law Journal http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol42/iss3/3 accessed 12 February 2012
The label of “ hired guns,” for lawyers means they are hired and paid to litigate a case in the benefit of their client. The term gun is utilized to symbolize the damage they can inflict through restitutions, fines, probation or jail time. However, the term “ hired guns,” carries a negative connotation since it compares lawyers to weapons, which furthers the idea that lawyers are immoral and awful individuals. It is not to say that a portion of lawyers does not operate as “ hired guns,” but categorize lawyers as “ hired guns,” taints the actions and reputations of lawyers who seek to help charities, non-profits, engage in pro bono and essentially seek law for justice over profits. The term“ hired guns,” is true to a certain extent because
The first and most important task may be overcoming the cynicism of so many lawyers in and out of government to whom concern for "fairness" somehow signifies weakness. It is a cynicism that government lawyers should not have the luxury of acting upon. In reality, a commitment to fairness is a highly reliable sign of strength and confidence in the merits of one's position, and it is usually those who fear the fairness of the forum who most fear outcomes based on merit. Recently, a controversy has erupted over whether Justice Department lawyers are bound by state codes of ethics and analogous local federal court rules of practice. The issue stems from rules that restrict contact by lawyers with parties known to be represented by counsel, including corporate parties. In essence, the government is seeking to exempt its own lawyers from state and federal court ethical restraints in ways that would go far beyond issues of witness contact. Courts, thus far, have been unsympathetic to this government effort at unilateral exemption from the rules of ethics.
It is also argued that solicitors are too close to the issues to argue the case well. Some people say that the double manning of cases is also responsible for some inefficiency. It encourages the ‘shrugging off’ of responsibility. Responsibility can be pushed from one to the other and standards will fall. OTHER COUNTRIES
The relationship between law and morality has been argued over by legal theorists for centuries. The debate is constantly be readdressed with new cases raising important moral and legal questions. This essay will explain the nature of law and morality and how they are linked.