Ethics

Graduate School Law School
1

<p>I’m a sophomore studying physics, and it crossed my mind the other day that I might want to be a lawyer some day. </p>

<p>I’m aware that there are a lot of quality-of-life decisions involved in lawyering, but I’ve got another concern: I’m a little iffy on being part of the adversarial justice system in certain cases. Basically, at this point I feel I would be very uncomfortable representing a client who is clearly in the wrong (e.g. I wouldn’t want to be a Big Tobacco lawyer) in a way that denies their being in the wrong (so I think I’d be okay working for a murderer if his goal wasn’t to get away with murder but rather to organize a plea-bargain).</p>

<p>I’d like to ask any of the practicing lawyers on this board about their take on the ethics of the whole thing. Have you ever had a case that you had to suspend your conscience to work on? If so, what did you do? How often have cases like that come up in your career? Is there a larger justification for working for the “bad guy”? Please also mention what kind of law you do.</p>

2

<p>how frequently these types of issues arise may depend on the type of practice you are in. eg, if you go into criminal defense law, expect to deal with a lot of guilty criminals – not all of whom want to plea bargain. </p>

<p>but regardless of the type of law you enter, the basic fact is that it is the lawyer’s job to diligently represent the interests of the client, as long as they are not asking you to do something illegal or unethical (and what is unethical is NOT defined by your personal ethics, but by a set of professional ethics – which include the need to diligently represent your client and NOT let your personal views interfer with that representation). </p>

<p>unless you have your own practice, you have little say over who the clients are. even if you have your own practice, there are economic and ethical issues with just turning away a client whose agenda enters an area you aren’t comfortable with. </p>

<p>a lawyer is a hired gun. a client may want your advise, and it will be your job to give them the best advise possible – but at the end of the day, it is the client that dictates the agenda. the “larger justification” for working for the “bad guy” is that it is the system, not YOU that gets to determine who is the bad guy – and everyone is entitled to legal representation in that system. a lawyer is just a piece of the process. law generally isn’t black and white – the lawyer tries to help define the gray – but again, it just isn’t a matter of your personal view as to what shade of gray it should be.</p>

<p>this type of consideration exists even if one isn’t in private practice. in gov’t or public interest positions, it is generally someone other than the individual lawyer setting the agenda that the lawyer must carry out. A change in adminsitrations, and an agency’s agenda may change. A new hot issue and a public interest group you felt comfortable with, now goes over a line you feel uncomfortable with (think ACLU and Nazi’s right to march as an example in which this could happen, whether or not that does it personally for you).</p>

<p>whatever area of law you enter, you may end up with a client who wants to do something you personally don’t agree with. if that is going to bother you, the practice of law is probably not for you.</p>

<p>personally, i think many prospective lawyers fail to appreciate the degree to which their professional lives are dictated by their clients. the fact that you are thinking about these issues now is a very good thing – i’ve known many lawyers for whom this type of issue did in fact end up being a source of dissatisfaction with the career.</p>