Morally Unworthy Lawyer
This paper provides critical and logical answer of why a lawyer “with a conscience” should refuse to act for a client whom he or she judges to be morally unworthy with supporting applied legal ethics approaches. There are four parts to this paper. Part I briefly introduces what the paper is about. Part II will critically analyse why the lawyer should accept to represent for a client if the client judges to be morally unworthy and how the applied ethics theory and approaches used to support my arguments. Part III summarises the law in NSW that relates to accepting a retainer. Part IV is conclusion of the whole paper.
II Analysis of the applied legal theory/approaches and why the lawyers should accept to represent a “morally unworthy” client.
There are many applied legal ethics approaches used in the law practice when evaluating and making decisions. Their titles are distinguished between the authors. It is my opinion that …show more content…
The first principle of partisanship holds that lawyers are partisan advocates for their clients that means the lawyer puts his or her client’s interests above all else . This principle can also be interpreted as in the textbook, “lawyers are required to seek to miximise the likelihood that a client will prevail” and “to advance their clients’ partisan interests with the maximum zeal permitted by law” . The exception of this principle is that the lawyers “must act within recognized constraints of legality or professional ethics." It is my belief that, as the question stated, due to the client has “valid legal claim”, it means the case involves serious legal issues and it is arguable; in addition, it is lawful correct. Thus, the solicitor should use his or her professional skills to represent the client who justified “morally unworthy” to the