I - Introduction:
The concept of partisanship is longstanding in the legal profession. It holds that a lawyer has a responsibility, to their present client, to promote that client’s interest as far as possible within the bounds of the law . This ‘standard conception’ of lawyers has long since been the outsider’s perspective of the profession. The lawyer as a ‘hired gun’ is the commonly held societal view, one who will act for their client with the vigour of a rabid animal; with little regard for the wider consequences or moral implications of their actions. The theory however does not display a lack of interest in moral matter, rather the amorality principle holds that by being morally neutral, the lawyer achieves moral righteousness ; moral neutrality better enables an attorney to defend a client. Despite the perceived immorality of this zealous lawyer, are they ethically bound to act as such? Is, or should, the principle of partisanship be so absolute as to render the actions of such a lawyer as entirely ethical? According to the standard legal conception, it would.
…show more content…
The perpetual dilemma in partisan approach is the potentially apposing ethical obligations imposed upon a lawyer; those to the client and those to the general interest of society and the profession. Ethical obligations go beyond individual moral conflictions that a lawyer may feel. Ethics, by definition, is the moral ground that underpins professional interactions. The lawyer’s professional responsibility extends beyond their client to the broader interests of the law, society and justice. It is for this reason that a lawyer who solely adheres to the standard conception cannot always be said to be acting ethical. The opposing theory therefore is to affirm a level of moral activism onto the lawyer’s role; the lawyer owes a duty not only to the client but also a fidelity to the