Week 1 - Intersection of the Model Rules and Ethics/Morality

Two Criticisms of Lawyers

1. first criticism involves lawyer’s stance toward world as a whole, representing a client forces lawyers to act amoral or even immoral toward the outside world

2. second criticism involves relationship between lawyer and client, asserts that lawyers treat their clients in an overly dominant, impersonal, and paternalistic manner

Where critiscims arise from

nature of professionalism itself, though lawyers face far stricter public criticism than other professionals

Characterization of lawyer’s world

lawyer's job creates a simplified moral world that often ignores broader ethical values.

Standard Legal Professional Training

makes it easier for attorneys to engage in or tolerate unethical behavior.

Role-Differentiated Behavior

Actions where a person's special role allows or requires them to set aside normal moral rules that apply to ordinary people

Ex: Scientists working on nuclear weapons often focus strictly on advancing technical knowledge while leaving moral decisions to government leaders

Requirement to set aside standard moral duties

strong justification because society normally expects equal treatment for everyone

How professionals embody role-differentiated behavior

prioritize client interests over the general public

Amoral Technician

view of lawyers as skilled experts who help clients achieve legal goals without judging the moral worth of those goals

Ex: Defense attorneys are obligated to provide a vigorous court defense even if they personally believe their client is guilty

Ex: Civil lawyers routinely ignore moral issues when helping clients use tax loopholes, disinherit children, or build harmful businesses.

Attorney’s morally questionable duty

Obligation to invoke procedure and practices which themselves are morally questionable

Ex: use unfair legal procedures—such as forcing rape victims to take psychiatric tests—to protect their clients

Standard Legal Tradition

claims attorneys should provide technical competence without judging their client's character or motives.

Why rigid professional role is appealing

frees them from struggling with complex moral dilemmas, constrains an otherwise confusing moral world

Argument for necessity of professional amoralism

necessary for the court system to function effectively, adversary system requires amoral representation so public courts—rather than private lawyers—decide legal guilt or innocence.

Helps guarantee every criminal defendant gets their day in court

Zealous legal advocacy on both sides helps prevent errors, only works if each party has a lawyer who will play their professional role

What arguments supporters of professional amoralism don’t address

fail to account for how easily it led to illegal and harmful behavior ilike n the Watergate scandal

Legal tactics like stonewalling and public dissembling show how zealously serving a client can damage broader social morality

When is full moral detach justified (professor disagrees)?

justified for criminal defense attorneys due to severe threats to liberty, but it is excessive for general legal practice

Legal Training and Capitalism

Legal training instills traits like competitiveness and ruthlessness, mirroring capitalist values while discouraging cooperation

Difference between doctors and lawyers

Unlike doctors who cure physical illness, lawyers advocate moral claims directly, making their personal integrity suspect when their arguments are for sale

Background of case

Lawsuit was brought by Spaulding's father automobile collision, settlement was reached. During examination, Plaintiff's treating physicians failed to detect any aortic aneurysm. Defense neurologist examined Spaulding, discovered a aneurysm reported the finding to Zimmerman's defense counsel. Defense counsel did not disclose to the plaintiff's counsel before the settlement. Later, Army physical led to discovery of aneurysm, which led Spaulding to file new action for additional damages.

Trial Court Ruling

While no duty to disclose existed during adversarial negotiations, withholding knowledge during a joint application for court approval constituted unconscionable concealment.

Legal Standard surrounding court’s authority over settlements

Courts possess discretionary authority to vacate minor settlements for separate and distinct injuries, even in cases of unilateral mistake where one party knowingly takes advantage of the other's ignorance.

Court ruling

held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 60.02(6) in setting aside the settlement, as defense counsel knew the court was approving a deal that ignored a life-threatening condition.

Rule of Law

A court can throw out a minor's injury settlement if the defense knows the injured person has a serious, hidden condition that neither the minor nor the court knows about, and fails to mention it when seeking the court's approval.