Anthony Krononman Lawyer Case Analysis

512 Words 3 Pages
In the legal field attorneys are constantly faced with ethical decision when deciding how to best protect their client or the public’s interests. The idea of the obligation of the attorney’s responsibility to the client’s interest or the greater good is contrasted by Anthony Kronman, and Charles Fried. Kronman’s main point of view of a lawyer-statesman takes the greater interest of the public into consideration is less viable than Fired’s idea of the attorney client friendship.
The idea that a lawyer should be a type of friend to their client is the foundation of Fried’s idea of the attorney client relationship. This type of friendship would have the attorney take the clients interest above the interest of the greater good. Fried states “to
…show more content…
Kronman states “At the core of this tra­dition, they say, is the simple but potent idea that lawyers have an obligation to serve the public good-consciously to promote not only their clients' private interests but also the integrity of the rules and institutions that form the framework within which these interests exist.” For a lawyer to take into consideration the rules placed before them and their clients intent they would successfully protect both client and public interest. This would allow the attorney to be morally confident in their choices. Also Kronman states, “On their view, for a lawyer to lead a responsible professional life, he must keep one eye on the legal arrangements that define the broad background of his everyday work. He must take an active interest in the betterment of these arrangements and be prepared to contribute to their improvement and repair.” With taking active interest a lawyer may take pride in the contributions they are making to society. With attorney working for inters solely of a client, like a large cooperation, there is the possibility of them losing sight of the greater good of society in the monotonous

Related Documents