People suffering from mental disorders have to be treated as persons with autonomy just like other citizens. However, this is a relatively new dimension since they have always been treated as incompetent in making decisions including treatment before the eyes of the law. Today laws protect them from involuntary treatment unless sanctioned by a court of law under specific circumstances.
A lawyer may be approached by a client with a mental condition that the lawyer feels may affect the ability to make decisions if it goes untreated. In the lawyer’s view, it is best if the client seeks treatment but the client on the other hand does not wish to undergo treatment. The client may feel that the condition has not affected her to an extent that she …show more content…
However, there are instances where the lawyer may feel the mental condition of the client will expose her to harm where she might not be able to adequately protect herself. The law allows the attorney is such circumstances to disregard zealous advocacy in a bid to prevent harm to the client. So in this case, if the lawyer feels that the client is likely to suffer significant physical or financial harm unless adequate steps are taken, the law mandates him to consult with other parties who can take preventive action to avert the loss. He may also seek the appointment of a guardian to that end. Rule 1.14 (c) relating to client-attorney relationship allows for release of the client’s confidential information as long as it goes towards preventing the harm (American Bar Association …show more content…
But if the client refuses and the attorney does not feel he is in a position to continue representing the client, he may withdraw from the case. However, terminating the client’s services because she has refused to seek treatment for her mental condition may be termed as sanism(Poole, Jivraj and Arslanian). Since the client has a right to representation, she may feel discriminated against because of her mental condition. She may pursue this path and use the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as a tool to challenge the ethics of the lawyer’s decision. Therefore, before the lawyer makes the decision to withdraw, he might consider how people may view his morals and ethics should she take that direction.
Nonetheless, Perlinand Weinstein (2016) argue that the traditional zealous approach to justice is repugnant to constitutional, statutory and human rights laws and should therefore not be applied. Besides it goes against the principle of therapeutic jurisprudence. Any lawyer who claims to be ethical in his conduct cannot act in negligence to the principle. The concept is concerned with the impact of law on the wellbeing of the participant; in this case the client. The lawyer can use it to foster better emotional and psychological
A lawyer may be approached by a client with a mental condition that the lawyer feels may affect the ability to make decisions if it goes untreated. In the lawyer’s view, it is best if the client seeks treatment but the client on the other hand does not wish to undergo treatment. The client may feel that the condition has not affected her to an extent that she …show more content…
However, there are instances where the lawyer may feel the mental condition of the client will expose her to harm where she might not be able to adequately protect herself. The law allows the attorney is such circumstances to disregard zealous advocacy in a bid to prevent harm to the client. So in this case, if the lawyer feels that the client is likely to suffer significant physical or financial harm unless adequate steps are taken, the law mandates him to consult with other parties who can take preventive action to avert the loss. He may also seek the appointment of a guardian to that end. Rule 1.14 (c) relating to client-attorney relationship allows for release of the client’s confidential information as long as it goes towards preventing the harm (American Bar Association …show more content…
But if the client refuses and the attorney does not feel he is in a position to continue representing the client, he may withdraw from the case. However, terminating the client’s services because she has refused to seek treatment for her mental condition may be termed as sanism(Poole, Jivraj and Arslanian). Since the client has a right to representation, she may feel discriminated against because of her mental condition. She may pursue this path and use the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as a tool to challenge the ethics of the lawyer’s decision. Therefore, before the lawyer makes the decision to withdraw, he might consider how people may view his morals and ethics should she take that direction.
Nonetheless, Perlinand Weinstein (2016) argue that the traditional zealous approach to justice is repugnant to constitutional, statutory and human rights laws and should therefore not be applied. Besides it goes against the principle of therapeutic jurisprudence. Any lawyer who claims to be ethical in his conduct cannot act in negligence to the principle. The concept is concerned with the impact of law on the wellbeing of the participant; in this case the client. The lawyer can use it to foster better emotional and psychological