Arguments Against Cause Lawyering

1415 Words3 Pages

1. This paper will seek to answer whether cause lawyering helps further the profession’s goal of justice and if, in doing so, it transgresses professional ethical boundaries. In considering the criticisms and justifications for cause lawyering along with its resonance with legal ethical principles, namely that of neutrality, it will conclude that cause lawyers are a useful instrument in driving social change, and should not be tied down to traditional principles as they only hinder their ability to effectively represent clients. 2. Myles Jackman’s crusade appears to be a match for the elite/vanguard approach identified by Hilbink, where the law is viewed as an instrument to bring about social change. By aiming to rewrite the substantive law …show more content…

Although solicitors are not bound to remain neutral in client selection, it is clear that the “cab rank rule”, which barristers abide by, has had extensive influence in the legal profession as solicitors rarely refuse to act for a client. Cause lawyers can therefore be viewed as transgressing legal cultural norms by encouraging client selection and straying from the principle of neutrality. This can be seen in that Jackman actively seeks, and sometimes chases clients whose cases hold the potential to advance his cause. Those in favour of neutrality argue that by over identifying with clients, particularly unpopular clients, the profession’s image risks being tarnished as these clients fail to be provided with “the professional good of detached advice”. This is because professional norms dictate that lawyers should keep a reasonable distance from the client, in order to keep any negative image associated with less popular clients from shifting to the lawyer, and consequently threatening the profession’s legitimacy. However, one limitation with this argument is that single client employment is generally accepted with little dismay, whereas cause lawyers, and particularly private practitioners, are cast in a negative light should they select clients. Boon contests that this justified on the basis that an employed lawyer’s right to select clients is acknowledged by rule, whereas this freedom is not extended to private practice cause lawyers. Still, this defence ignores the …show more content…

Perhaps the legal profession should adopt an understanding of the standard conception based upon David Lubon’s, where he suggests that one’s responsibilities under the standard conception are not absolute. Rather, they are dependent upon the effectiveness of the adversary system. In this way, Jackman is correct to ‘transgress’ the generally accepted legal ethical norms in situations where the adversary system is failing the public, such as when Andrew Holland was wrongly persuaded to accept a guilty plea. It appears that Jackman applied Luban’s alternative model of legal ethics by convincing Holland to pursue a more just course of action. In these instances, a lawyer’s exertion of moral influence should be viewed as necessary to offset the power imbalance between the claimant and defendant and, thus furthering the profession’s goal of

More about Arguments Against Cause Lawyering

Open Document