Considering Christine Parker’s theory of lawyers ' ethics, which of the four approaches she describes would you hope to apply if you were to go on to legal practice after graduation? Critique your chosen model and explain why the approach is suited to you and the type of practice you would consider.
The application of ethical frameworks towards making a legal decision is held as important by many scholars, as most agree that it is important to apply these frameworks throughout one’s profession when dealing with clients. What they do not necessarily agree on however, is which framework is appropriate for one to use. Parker has explored four approaches that lawyers may choose to utilize throughout their career, each implicating their own social …show more content…
Parker and Evans noted that a disadvantage of this approach is that there is little to no agreed definition of ‘justice’ in the legal community, despite the fact that lawyers are encouraged to create their own convictions regarding justice, depending on the various circumstances. Although I do agree that the term ‘justice’ is too broad to define, I do believe that as legal professionals, we have been trained and undergone significant learning to acquire the relevant knowledge and skills to determine on our own the appropriate decisions for the best possible outcome. Moral activism encourages lawyers to make their own convictions, to incorporate one’s own values and apply them with our skills to closely define and achieve the most ‘just’ outcome of a situation. Hence, although this disadvantage does create some degree of difficulty, it does provide an opportunity for lawyers to develop their skills in legal ethics if handled correctly, while also learning to develop their own convictions on how justice is …show more content…
The first is that that it can become expensive. This is because counseling clients takes time. Hence, either lawyers must be willing to work the extra time at an overall reduced income, or clients must be willing to pay more for the extra time. Furthermore, not all clients will welcome this approach, as moral guidance is not usually expected, nor desired from legal professionals. Although Vischer does make very valid points, I believe these limitations are only a minor issue in comparison to the bigger picture of achieving the best and just outcomes. Although clients may not be so open to seeking help from a moral activist, nor paying for one, this does a moral activist is left with no other options. Clients approach lawyers in hopes of assistance, quality advice and action. I believe that through negotiation, and by providing a high quality service, clients are able to overlook such setbacks and see the bigger issue at hand, which is going through the appropriate actions to achieve the best outcomes for them, despite the small limitations along the
The application of ethical frameworks towards making a legal decision is held as important by many scholars, as most agree that it is important to apply these frameworks throughout one’s profession when dealing with clients. What they do not necessarily agree on however, is which framework is appropriate for one to use. Parker has explored four approaches that lawyers may choose to utilize throughout their career, each implicating their own social …show more content…
Parker and Evans noted that a disadvantage of this approach is that there is little to no agreed definition of ‘justice’ in the legal community, despite the fact that lawyers are encouraged to create their own convictions regarding justice, depending on the various circumstances. Although I do agree that the term ‘justice’ is too broad to define, I do believe that as legal professionals, we have been trained and undergone significant learning to acquire the relevant knowledge and skills to determine on our own the appropriate decisions for the best possible outcome. Moral activism encourages lawyers to make their own convictions, to incorporate one’s own values and apply them with our skills to closely define and achieve the most ‘just’ outcome of a situation. Hence, although this disadvantage does create some degree of difficulty, it does provide an opportunity for lawyers to develop their skills in legal ethics if handled correctly, while also learning to develop their own convictions on how justice is …show more content…
The first is that that it can become expensive. This is because counseling clients takes time. Hence, either lawyers must be willing to work the extra time at an overall reduced income, or clients must be willing to pay more for the extra time. Furthermore, not all clients will welcome this approach, as moral guidance is not usually expected, nor desired from legal professionals. Although Vischer does make very valid points, I believe these limitations are only a minor issue in comparison to the bigger picture of achieving the best and just outcomes. Although clients may not be so open to seeking help from a moral activist, nor paying for one, this does a moral activist is left with no other options. Clients approach lawyers in hopes of assistance, quality advice and action. I believe that through negotiation, and by providing a high quality service, clients are able to overlook such setbacks and see the bigger issue at hand, which is going through the appropriate actions to achieve the best outcomes for them, despite the small limitations along the