Legal ethics

?
What are legal ethics?
Professional Legal Ethics: ‘a system of morality governing the moral dimensions of work ‘. Codes of Conduct Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct Bar Standards Board Code of Conduct
1 of 32
Ethical requirements of lawyers can be completely different from none Lawyers because of their role, this is shown in which case?
Lake Pleasant case- Lawyer defending man charged with murder, man confesses & says where he buried bodies, lawyer tells no one, not even parents of victims when they ask him if he knows where bodies are. At trial his knowledge comes out
2 of 32
What does David Luban say on Lawyer's ethics and role morality
Lawyers’ role may require and justify them acting in a way that is contrary to common morality
3 of 32
What does he say on 'role morality?'
lawyers disregard their own morality and societal values when their role demands it. Role agent avoids moral responsibility for acts carried out in his client’s name “I was only doing my job”
4 of 32
What is the issue with role morality?
Saying you were only doing your job is an amoral excuse, unless your job is serving a moral purpose
5 of 32
What is 'moral activism' in David Luban's view?
Lawyers must have an 'institutional excuse' if their behaviour is to conflict with common morality. what they do must be required by the institution which they serve and The institution they serve must be good ie serve a good purpose.
6 of 32
What is considered an acceptable model of ethics?
Considering the role a lawyer plays in society e.g. in the Lake pleasant case, his conduct was justified because he was acting as a criminal lawyer
7 of 32
What is the Standard Conception of Legal Ethics?
What the lawyer was acting in accordance with: key features are partisanship, neutrality, moral independence/ Non-accountability, Confidentiality
8 of 32
Why must lawyers act this way?
Criminal defence lawyer defends an individual against the power of the State, protects against miscarriage of justice. An individual's liberty and reputation are at stake.
9 of 32
What are the limits on standard conception in criminal defence?
Duty not to mislead the court vs Duty to the client
10 of 32
What is the main difference when it comes to civil litigation/transactional lawyers
They don't appear in courts, they are often connected with businesses
11 of 32
What does David Luban say about the standard conception?
Lawyers can act in a way that runs contrary to common morality if they have an ‘institutional excuse’ :they are serving a institution that itself serves the public interest AND what the lawyer does is necessary in order to serve that institution
12 of 32
What is the main issue with most transactional lawyers then?
They say 'I'm just doing my job', without having a moral reason
13 of 32
What is a good civil case when exploring this?
Zelda Perkins- brought allegations against Weinstein and was advised to claim against miramax and him. She later signed a none-disclosure agreement, therefore couldn't testify against him
14 of 32
Allen and Overy adopted the model of partisanship
This means protecting their client
15 of 32
Does civil litigation process provide lawyers with a sufficiently strong excuse to act against common morality?
Luban believes it is necessary to prevent self-help e.g. punching people
16 of 32
What do most lawyers say when it comes to transactional claims e.g. Barclay's bank trying to evade taxes?
Most lawyers would defend themselves by saying they were only doing what the client wanted, and their role requires this and they did not deliberately break law.
17 of 32
With transactional lawyers is the question if it's moral?
No, the question is if it's morally required by the lawyer’s role
18 of 32
What is partisanship?
requires the lawyer to do everything that lawyer can to help client get its way-fighting hard for the client even if: Requires interpreting the law in a very strained, awkward way?
19 of 32
What must the lawyer be?
be neutral about the client’s instructions. It is up to the client how it wishes to arrange its tax affairs-it is not something that the lawyer is responsible: non-accountability
20 of 32
Corporate Lawyers and Partisanship: imbalance of power
client multi-national companies may be more powerful than national regulators. So by acting in partisan way actually making imbalance of power worse
21 of 32
What is at stake here?
Not liberty, or reputation-saving money, retaining wealth
22 of 32
Neutrality/Non-Accountability
Lawyers would refuse unpopular clients unless they were non-accountable for doing so (ie not blamed for doing so) No sign this is an issue in corporate context
23 of 32
What does David Luban say on moral activism?
Lawyers must act according to their own consciences. He wants lawyers to have an actual justification, or refuse to work with the clients
24 of 32
What are the criticisms of this approach?
It appeals to common morality, which is subjective. Lawyers have autonomy, and refusing clients would deny them their legal rights
25 of 32
Corporate Lawyers: Partisanship
If judges or the State don’t like what is being done they should make it illegal, not rely on lawyers’ ethics to refuse to assist.
26 of 32
What are the problems with this?
Arrangements rarely come attention of the authorities. So really bad interpretations of legal rules do not get challenged.
27 of 32
William Simon: Ethical Discretion in Lawyering
Lawyers should strive for justice and normally be partisan. Should normally not pass judgment on substance and merits of dispute or pay attention to the overall circumstances of the case and whether judgment is being done or the wider ramifications
28 of 32
What about exceptions?
where system breaks down or where the matter will never come before a court Then lawyer must decide how to act based upon her view of the legal merits/justice of the case.
29 of 32
What would Luban and Simon say about the Zelda Perkins case?
S- she was well represented and therefore should be held to her agreement. Luban would say that morality means this is wrong
30 of 32
What are Pepper's criticisms
Violate client’s rights and client’s autonomy Too much power to lawyers Correct legal result simply not clear enough in many cases-arguable. (Breach confidentiality) Betray client
31 of 32
What is the solicitor's code of conduct?
When principles conflict, the one taking precedence must best serve public interest
32 of 32

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Ethical requirements of lawyers can be completely different from none Lawyers because of their role, this is shown in which case?

Back

Lake Pleasant case- Lawyer defending man charged with murder, man confesses & says where he buried bodies, lawyer tells no one, not even parents of victims when they ask him if he knows where bodies are. At trial his knowledge comes out

Card 3

Front

What does David Luban say on Lawyer's ethics and role morality

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

What does he say on 'role morality?'

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

What is the issue with role morality?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

MattRandalloK6

Report

Often, lawyers and other legal professionals are faced with conflicting interests from the clients they are working for and their personal interests. Legal ethics are important in helping the attorney to work balance these interests and work to promote good faith. For example, when I used the services of an attorney from oxnerpermarlaw.com, it was easy to notice that he did not fully agree with all my statements and my recommendations, but he still was being a professional and trying to conduct me by doing everything correctly.

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Foundations of Law resources »