<p>…I heard this is a thing that lawyers use.</p>
<p>Does anyone know what it is exactly? I’m real interested</p>
<p>There may be more than one definition, but the definition I have heard consists of lawyers who litigate in order to accomplish some social cause. Personally, I find these type of lawyers to be unethical and disgusting. Why? A lawyer is obligated to place his client first and represent his client zealously. When a lawyer selects clients in order to fulfill a particular cause, that lawyer is himself at risk of making decisions that are contrary to the best interests of the client in order to continue pursuing the lawyer’s cause. A good lawyer can represent a serial killer one day and then the next week represent the family of a murder victim. A good lawyer should keep his personal agenda out of his representation of clients. </p>
<p>About a decade or so ago, a lot of legal aid lawyers were filing class action law suits on behalf of poor clients in order to change Federal and State policy towards the poor. Meanwhile they were turning away poor clients needing domestic relations services such as divorce, child custody, etc. because they didn’t have the time to represent them. Fortunately, Congress banned these lawyers from filing such claims. </p>
<p>Cause lawyers should not be confused with lawyers who specialize in a particular type of client. For example, some lawyers only represent employers or some only represent employees. They often do so in order to develop exertise in a particular aspect of law. They don’t file law suits in order to change social policy. I don’t have any problem with these lawyers.</p>
<p>Most “cause” lawyers represent clients who are competely in accord with the cause being furthered by the litigation, and thus there is nothing “unethical” or “disgusting” about handling such claims. </p>
<p>One example: Griswald, the plaintiff in Griswald v. Connecticut, the case that established a right to privacy in connection with the use of birth control by married couples, was the dean of Yale school, and wholeheartedly supported the position staked out in the litigation. Another: in Loving v. Virginia, the case that found statutes like the one in Virginia that banned inter-racial marriages, the Lovings, a married couple who had been forced to move out of state to avoid going to prison, were represented by NAACP lawyers.</p>
<p>You just proved my point. You justified the actions of the lawyers because YOU PERSONALLY agree with the outcomes of the cases. The focus of practicing law is on the client and not on whether the lawyer personally agrees with the objective of the action.</p>
<p>One of the worst offendeners of cause lawyering is the ACLU. They only take cases that further their political interests. They use clients as tools to further their personal objectives. When they win a case, the public perceives their victory as a victory for a bunch of liberal lawyers, not as victory for a particular client seeking help. The system works fine as long as YOU PERSONALLY agree with what the ACLU is doing. People who disagree with the political views of the ACLU are now forming their own lawyer advocacy groups. One example is the ACLJ. They are just as nutty as the ACLU except they are on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Now we are seeing cases where a plaintiff is represented by the ACLU and the defendant is represented by the ACLJ. The public perceives this not as a battle between two parties, but as a battle between lawyers with opposing agendas. Regardless of who wins the case, the legal profession suffers. </p>
<p>I should clarify my reference to unethical. I did not mean unethical in the sense of Code of Professional Responsiblity. These vary by state and there is no general rule. I meant unethical as it is used in regular discourse.</p>
<p>Razorsharp,</p>
<p>You say that I “justified the actions of the lawyers because
YOU PERSONALLY agree with the outcomes of the cases.” It’s true that am pleased that my wife and I may travel to Virginia together without fear of being prosecuted for a felony. But I explicitly justified the actions of the lawyers because they were furthering the interests of their clients.</p>
<p>“The focus of practicing law is on the client and not on whether the lawyer personally agrees with the objective of the action.” It’s true that an attorney’s professional obligation is to put the interests of the client ahead of his/her own. But why would it be unethical (in any sense) for a lawyer to chose to represent clients whose legal interests coincide with the lawyer’s political beliefs? Choosing clients on that basis probably increases the likelihood that the client’s interests will be zealously represented. I fail to see anything unethical about choosing clients whose cases will also, in the view of the attorney, further the cause of justice. The are certainly no canons of professional responsibility in any state that require an attorney to disregard the political or social consequences of the arguments he/she will have to further in representing a client; indeed, the converse may be true. An attorney who serves as a part-time general counsel for an organization that advocates long sentences for drunk drivers may have an ethical problem (both in the legal sense and in the informal sense) if he/she were to simultaneously represent people accused of drunk driving.</p>
<p>
I have no problem with a client seeking out legal assistance and the lawyer saying “Gee, I agree with you and your objective.” The problem is that it does not happen that way. Too many legal advocay groups ARE the party. They simply find a token client to justify their legal actions. </p>
<p>How about the ACLU? Are they lawyers representing clients who come to them or are they the party who uses clients to further their political agenda? </p>
<p>How about this?
<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/24/AR2006052401421.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/24/AR2006052401421.html</a>
The Washington Post correctly describes the ACLU as a civil rights group. Unfortunately, they frequently portray themselves as a group of lawyers dedicated to serving various clients. </p>
<p>I think the ACLU exploits people in real need of service. If a person comes to the ACLU and seeks assistance, he or she only gets attention, if he or she fits the mold of the ACLU’s agenda. It is disgraceful.</p>
<p>Do we really want lawyers using the court to establish the lawyer’s political, social, or other agenda? I don’t think that is what the the courts were intended for. I think the legal profession suffers tremendously because of these lawyers. </p>
<p>You said:
I believe you are wrong. A lawyer has a duty to represent a client zealously. If your personal beliefs prevent you from making every legal and ethical (in the CPR sense) argument on behalf of the client, you have no business representing that client. </p>
<p>You said:
I again believe you are mistaken. Legal ethics vary by state and there may be some states that are consistent with your view, but I doubt there are many. Many of these cases are fact dependent. For example, I know of a criminal defense attorney who also serves as a part time prosecutor. He prosecutes in another jurisdiction and does not do criminal work in that jursdiction. I see nothing contrary to the legal ethics by his behavior.</p>
<p>Razorsharp,</p>
<p>I agree that “[a] lawyer has a duty to represent a client zealously. If your personal beliefs prevent you from making every legal and ethical (in the CPR sense) argument on behalf of the client, you have no business representing that client.” </p>
<p>But I fail to see any ethical (in any sense) issue raised when a lawyer who zealously supports a cause represents a client who zealously supports the same cause in litigation that will further that cause. </p>
<p>I have no quarrel with the ACLU; I’m a dues-paying member. People go to the ACLU all the time and ask for their representation in cases where they perceive their legal rights to have been violated. I’m delighted that they’re filing the suits described in the Washington Post article.</p>
<p>I likewise have no issue with the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation supporting, in their words, “pro bono litigation for less government and objective law.” </p>
<p>The courts exist to decide “cases and controversies.” If the courts aren’t going to decide such matters, who will? </p>
<p>Regarding my hypothetical of the general counsel of a group that advocates long sentences for drunk drivers possibly having an ethical problem in simultaneously representing people accused of drunk driving, here’s some commentary on the ABA’s Rule 1.7:</p>
<p>“Ordinarily a lawyer may take inconsistent legal positions in different tribunals at different times on behalf of different clients. The mere fact that advocating a legal position on behalf of one client might create precedent adverse to the interests of a client represented by the lawyer in an unrelated matter does not create a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest exists, however, if there is a significant risk that a lawyer’s action on behalf of one client will materially limit the lawyer’s effectiveness in representing another client in a different case; for example, when a decision favoring one client will create a precedent likely to seriously weaken the position taken on behalf of the other client. Factors relevant in determining whether the clients need to be advised of the risk include: where the cases are pending, whether the issue is substantive or procedural, the temporal relationship between the matters, the significance of the issue to the immediate and long-term interests of the clients involved and the clients’ reasonable expectations in retaining the lawyer. If there is significant risk of material limitation, then absent informed consent of the affected clients, the lawyer must refuse one of the representations or withdraw from one or both matters.”</p>