Comparison of Fried and Kronman
In the modern society, the role of lawyers is complex and more demanding. Initially, they were only supposed to represent their clients, but the situation is different currently given the fact that they are supposed to observed stricter codes of conduct, as they carry out their duties. In his view, Fried suggests that a lawyer is a special friend whose interest is to serve the client. In this regard, the only focus of a lawyer to ensure the client wins the case, irrespective of the means or the tactics applied. Anthony Kronman, on his part, gives a different view, arguing that a lawyer should behave like a diplomat/statesperson in the sense that he or she aspires to protect the legal profession rather than trying to achieve short-time goals by fulfilling the wishes and desires of a single client. This paper looks at the differences between their views, and makes an assertion on the best view to adopt.
Charles Fried, in his works titled, the lawyer as a friend, starts his discussion by asking a fundamental question on whether a good lawyer could perhaps be a good person. He asks this …show more content…
A good lawyer, according to Kronman, is the one who makes informed judgments rather than the one who seeks to gain fame, irrespective of the means. A lawyer should act professionally (Best, 2009). He observed that there have been tremendous changes in the way legal schools operate, the way law firms are run, and the way courts discharge their duties. Because of these factors, the legal profession is losing its rightful place in society. The lawyer has to be considerate in everything he or she does since the aim is to preserve the profession and not to make profits by using the law to subvert
In the modern society, the role of lawyers is complex and more demanding. Initially, they were only supposed to represent their clients, but the situation is different currently given the fact that they are supposed to observed stricter codes of conduct, as they carry out their duties. In his view, Fried suggests that a lawyer is a special friend whose interest is to serve the client. In this regard, the only focus of a lawyer to ensure the client wins the case, irrespective of the means or the tactics applied. Anthony Kronman, on his part, gives a different view, arguing that a lawyer should behave like a diplomat/statesperson in the sense that he or she aspires to protect the legal profession rather than trying to achieve short-time goals by fulfilling the wishes and desires of a single client. This paper looks at the differences between their views, and makes an assertion on the best view to adopt.
Charles Fried, in his works titled, the lawyer as a friend, starts his discussion by asking a fundamental question on whether a good lawyer could perhaps be a good person. He asks this …show more content…
A good lawyer, according to Kronman, is the one who makes informed judgments rather than the one who seeks to gain fame, irrespective of the means. A lawyer should act professionally (Best, 2009). He observed that there have been tremendous changes in the way legal schools operate, the way law firms are run, and the way courts discharge their duties. Because of these factors, the legal profession is losing its rightful place in society. The lawyer has to be considerate in everything he or she does since the aim is to preserve the profession and not to make profits by using the law to subvert