Ethical Dilemmas in Defending the Factually Guilty Client (original) (raw)
Related papers
Pace Law Review, 1999
The growing public disquiet about lawyer ethics is not mainly because people think lawyers neglect their professional standards. Rather, the main problem is the belief among lawyers that the duty of loyalty to clients requires a lawyer to mislead. Specifically, the ethical duty of confidentiality and the ethical duty of zealous advocacy are interpreted together to mean that lawyers must conceal some facts ("confidentiality") while forcefully asserting others. This mis-coupling of these two key ethical duties has a n inevitable tendency to produce a kind of partial-truth advocacy i n which the lawyer knowingly distracts attention from the truth and fosters misconceptions in the minds of jurors and others. In the end, lawyers frequently succeed in creating false impressions or discrediting the truth and, as a result, people feel they cannot trust lawyers to be straight. Distrust of lawyers is not, however, just a n image problem of a n insular profession. Our basic civic order relies on the legal system and public respect for it. If the public cannot trust the lawyers who are entrusted with the legal system, there is a problem that casts a shadow on the integrity of the very concept of rule of law. This essay addresses these issues and proposes one possible solution. Its objective is to provide a basis for thinking about how, con-
Are Legal Ethics Ethical? A Survey Experiment
2013
Many core questions in legal ethics concern the relationship between ordinary morality and rules of professional conduct that govern lawyers. Do these legal ethics rules diverge from ordinary morality? Is the lawyer's role morally distinctive? Do professional norms establish what the lawyer has most reason to do? Conjectured answers to these questions abound. In this Article, we use methods from moral psychology and experimental philosophy to provide the first systematic, empirical examination of these questions. Results from a survey experiment suggest that legal ethics rules about advocacy and confidentiality diverge from lay moral judgments; that lay judgments do not, in general, attribute distinctive moral significance to the lawyer's role; and that norms of professional conduct can change (but do not fully determine) the ordinary moral status of lawyers'actions. We conclude by discussing some theoretical and policy implications of these results.
Constructing Systemic Safeguards Against Informant Perjury
Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law
13 Saul M. Kassin, Human Judges of Truth, Deception, and Credibility: Confident but Erroneous, 23 CARDozO L. REv. 809, 809 (2002). "Dozens of studies of the communication of deception provide compelling evidence that people are not very skilled at distinguishing when others are lying from when they are telling the truth. In experimental studies of detecting deception, accuracy is typically only slightly better than chance." Bella M. DePaulo et al., The Accuracy-
The Lawyer or Liar? The Myths and Realities of a Misjudged Profession
The 27th Inaugural Lecture of Abia State University, Uturu, describes the lawyer and his lawyering experience shrouded in myths and realities of the profession that lead to apparent misjudgment. Isolating objectionable unethical practices, it tries to explain common misconceptions and misjudgments of the lawyer’s role, the realities of the role of competent lawyering and how the ethics of the profession create myths around the lawyer.