The most important figures in the field of legal ethics – of whom I have the honour to have several as critics in this synthesis symposium – seem ironically concerned about an excessive tendency of citizens and lawyers to obey the law. Simon glorifies civil disobedience and even the repeal of the law, Luban reminds us that Milgram`s experiments have shown that people are not particularly inclined to resist unjust authorities, and even Pepper, who for many years vigorously defended standard design against his academic criticism, was eager to create opportunities for conscientious objection by lawyers. The nightmare case behind the backs of these theorists is the German legal profession under the Third Reich or the American legal profession in the South Jim Crow, who are only too willing to lend their aid and expertise to the administration of an unjust regime by faithfully interpreting and applying positive law. The figure of the lawyer like Eichmann persecutes many legal ethicists. Their noble dreams rely on real lawyers like Louis Brandeis or fictional characters like Atticus Finch to emphasize the virtues of wisdom, discretion and enlightened judgment on morality and law. Not surprisingly, these lawyers tend to be mavericks and strangers willing to disobey orders or whistle if they believe the client`s goals are unfair. My nightmare, on the other hand, takes place in a world where not all lawyers possess the integrity and reliability of Brandeis and Finch, but are equally eager to act as moral free agents. Fear is not anarchy, but abuse of power. The character that haunts my dreams is the lawyers in the Office of the General Counsel who present their «legal» advice to the president with a clear face and inform him that the law allows waterboarding, or Enron`s in-house and contract lawyers who approved the transactions that ultimately turned the company upside down. In this nightmarish view, lawyers do not believe they are hurting; Rather, they believe they respect the ethical principle of zealous defence. Whether advising clients or structuring transactions, or not acting as lawyers, they believe they are ethically entitled to rely on tense, distorted and implausible (or, more positively, creative and aggressive) legal interpretations to advance their clients` goals. My noble dream is not a defender of extraordinary wisdom and discretion, but just a normal person who is reluctant to derail the law to allow his client to do anything. After a long time, the legal terms of false public institution are prescribed by society and law different rules and different penalties.
Ethics and morality are defined as a written or unwritten code of conduct for a lawyer`s practice that describes the professional conduct of the Bar Association. The lawyer plays an important role in maintaining peace in society. They still represent legal systems that are among the noblest functions of our society. It is above all the task of the Bar Association to realize the wish of its clients by providing just and equal justice to every person on earth. In this short response, I address the review of my book Lawyers and Fidelity to Law in the Texas Law Review by Tony Alfieri, Kate Kruse, David Luban, Steve Pepper, and Bill Simon. Although the critical response varies in detail, one can generally compare our differences with H.L.A. Hart`s idea of a contrast between the nightmare and the noble dream of a practice or institution. A legal theory or legal ethics may be driven by the fear that another approach is the way to an imaginary hell, and I think this metaphor helps explain some of the points of contention in the book debate.
In a moderately decent society, the ethics of lawyers acting as lawyers must be guided by the law, not morality or justice. If lawyers want to be activists or dissidents, they can be, but it is important that they do not confuse these very different social roles. I am not blind to the injustices that remain in the United States, but the legal response to that injustice should not be individual acts of sabotage or cancellation. Lawyers can and should advocate for change, but as always, it should be zealous advocacy. within the framework of the law. One of the main purposes of the book was to restore the last part of the just-quoted lawyer`s mantra to its rightful place in legal ethics. Without the constitutive commitment of fidelity to the law, lawyers are merely sophists who offer nothing beyond the kind of half-baked moral advice that any decent client could provide. If there is anything special about our profession, it is a commitment to the value of legality and a corresponding commitment to upholding the law. [2] According to the Black Law Dictionary, legal ethics, also known as the etiquette of the profession, refers to the appropriate minimum standard of conduct within the legal profession. This job to be honest and work in the right way, the lawyer who does not work with sincerity and they always follow the code of conduct.
The two things that are needed are: this research deals with the legal profession, it plays an important role in the administrative sphere of justice vis-à-vis our society. He contributes to the country in the best possible way with high morals and ethics. He plays a very important role in becoming a successful lawyer. It is also about the ethics of lawyers, duties to the court and the client, opponents and colleagues. [4] Principle 14 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of the Prosecutor states: «Lawyers, in protecting the rights of their clients and promoting the cause of justice, shall seek to download human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized by national and international law, and shall at all times act fairly and conscientiously in accordance with the law and recognized standards and ethics of right. Unacceptable behavior in society – known is a moral attitude.