|
Abstract |
The dominant model of legal professionalism requires lawyers to advocate
zealously for their clients, regardless of personal moral objections. This role, stemming
from the adversarial system, positions lawyers as resolute representatives who must
prioritize client interests above all else. However, as instances where lawyers have
justified or facilitated egregious acts come to light, there is growing resistance from the
public and newer legal practitioners against the notion that unwavering client advocacy
is a professional necessity. Critics like John Kennedy, Trevor Farrow, Robert Vischer,
and Allan Hutchinson argue for a reevaluation of this antiquated ethical stance,
advocating for a model that considers the broader societal impact of legal practice. This
paper explores the ethical dilemmas of the dominant model, proposing a new regulatory
framework that balances the merits of both dominant and alternative views. The
proposed system divides the legal profession into three segments: Advocates, Juridical
Scriveners, and In-House Advisors. Advocates, akin to traditional trial lawyers, would
operate under a modified dominant model, employed and regulated by an independent
body to ensure fair distribution of cases and mitigate financial pressures. Juridical
Scriveners, responsible for transactional and advisory work, would have ethical
guidelines encouraging moral reflection and accountability, acknowledging their role
in shaping legal documents with significant social impact. In-House Advisors,
balancing roles of both Advocates and Scriveners, would require tailored regulations to
address their unique client-employer relationship. This trichotomy aims to create a
sustainable legal profession that respects individual practitioner needs while
maintaining ethical integrity and access to justice. |
International Journal of Law, Ethics, and TechnologyAd Frontieras Iuris et Scientiarum: Inclusio, Innovatio, Progressio