Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Differences between criminal and civil
Differences between criminal and civil
Differentiate between criminal and civil litigation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Differences between criminal and civil
It is a plot line that seemed to come straight out of a John Grisham novel. After all it had all the major elements: a conspiracy, a corrupt corporation, but most importantly a lawyer examining his inner conscience only to decide to break with the status quo and expose his corporate masters. In fact, one could say that the film Michael Clayton (2007), was a modern day John Grisham film that never was. In all certainty, Michael Clayton is a typical Hollywood movie with a typical Hollywood ending where good defeats evil and where truth prevails over obfuscation.That does not mean that it should be dismissed so readily however. The film Michael Clayton still raises many of the ethical questions within the legal profession. Namely, the film explores the concept of the Attorney Client Privilege, and through its plot and rich storyline, questions the very notion of it. However, it is easy to forget that the film is a pure work of fiction; and although it does a adequate job of pointing out the disadvantages of the Attorney Client Privilege, its assertion that the privilege should be eroded when the attorney knows that his or her client is lying, is just as phantasmal as the scenes are which are in the film.
“I’m not a miracle worker; I’m a janitor,” remarks Michael Clayton in one of the opening scenes of the film. An apt phrase because Clayton has been dispatched to rein in a fellow associate named Arthur Edens who is suffering from a manic breakdown—stripping off his clothes during the middle of a deposition and running around naked in the parking lot. Visiting Edens in jail after the incident, the sighs of the breakdown showed no sighs of subsiding. In the middle of a conversation with Clayton, Edens goes on a tirade, eventually aski...
... middle of paper ...
...t everyone has a job to do. Lawyers are—and should not be—an exception to that rule.
Works Cited
Freedman, Monroe H., and Abbe Smith. Understanding Lawyers' Ethics. New Providence, NJ: LexisNexis, 2010. Print.
Kairys, David. "Legal Education As Training For Hierarchy." The Politics of Law: a Progressive Critique. By Duncan Kennedy. New York: Basic, 1998. 54-75. Print.
Keefe, Patrick Radden. "Michael Clayton's Devastating Critique of the Legal Profession. - By Patrick Radden Keefe." Slate Magazine. Washington Post.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC, 19 Feb. 2008. Web. 10 Mar. 2011.
Shanahan, Sara Jane. "Another View: The Eroding Attorney-Client Privilege - NYTimes.com." NYTimes.com. The New York Times Company, 2 Nov. 2009. Web. 10 Mar. 2011.
Simon, David. "The Attorney-Cleint Privilege As Applied to Corporations." Yale Law Journal 65.7 (1956): 953-90. Print.
Abadinsky, Howard. Law and Justice: An Introduction to the American Legal System. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.
Shnayerson, Robert. The Illustrated History of The Supreme Court Of The United States. New York: Abrams, 1986.
'Lawyers are all right, I guess - but it doesn't appeal to me,' I said. 'I mean they're all right if they go around saving innocent guys' lives all the time, and like that, but you don't do that kind of stuff if you're a lawyer. All you do is make a lot of dough and play golf and play bridge and buy cars and drink Martinis and look like a hot-shot. How would you know you weren't being a phony? The trouble is, you wouldn't' (Salinger 172).
...f-regulate? A reasonable case for increased regulation can be made given the massive cost of recent financial turmoil and attorneys’ ostensible role in these crises. Moreover, as lawyers effectively operate as gatekeepers and rubberstamps for much of business decsionmaking, they may serve as the most efficient risk bearer to reduce externalized costs, whether through a division of ethical responsibilities between in-house attorneys and independent firms or simply staying the drastic course of Lawson. This modification of the role of attorneys does present a difficult contradiction as the exact value added by lawyers is leveraged into a social duty and it’s not obvious whether the two can co-exist. Given the relative lack of traction and progress, however, it seems the stickiness of established behavior may present too much value, for attorneys and clients alike.
pp. pp. pp Kay, H. H. (2004, Jan). Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Professor of Law.
One-L, by Scott Turow, outlines the experience of attending Harvard Law School as a first year law-student. Turow weaves his experiences with those around him, and intertwines the professors of Harvard law, as well as their lectures. Initially, Turow enters Harvard law in a bit of disarray and awe. As a world of hornbooks, treatises, law-reviews, group studies, and legal terminology unfold beyond comprehension; Turow is confronted with the task of maintaining sanity. Time appears to be the most important variable, as Turow begins to study for contracts, torts, property, civil procedure, and criminal law; because time is so precious, one key-highlight for law-students is to balance family. Moreover, Turow is part of section-1, and two of his
Rehnquist, William H., Brennan, William J. "A Casebook on the Law and Society: What Rights
Although the legal profession is a single discourse community, it is made up of many smaller discourse communities. This is so because while all lawyers share the same broad goals of the legal profession and have a general knowledge and expertise in all areas of the law, most lawyers after graduating from law school and passing the bar exam specialize in a particular area of law. This specialization requires the lawyer to go beyond the broad concepts of law as a whole and to become knowledgeable and proficient in the sometimes minute details of a more specific area of law. Even then, some lawyers will go even further to focus on one aspect or another of that particular area of law. This results in most lawyers being members of many even smal...
Love them or hate them, heroes or villains; there is no doubt that lawyers make good entertainment. The offerings of current television shows such as The Good Wife, Suits and Law and Order are evidence that legal dramas continue to be a favorite subject for pop culture media. While one can easily find hundreds of titles when searching for entertainment in the legal genre, the characterization of fictional lawyers varies widely from average decent citizens to crusading heroes on the positive side, and from mediocre drudges to corrupt, amoral villains on the negative side. The popularity of the legal drama and the potential impact has led to concern and scrutiny by the legal profession over the last few decades. One study conducted among first year law students found the prevalence of lawyers in pop culture to be so pervasive it had a significant influence on the student’s opinions of the law and lawyers (Asimow et al. 427-428). Although the study shows that for the most part this has been a positive influence, Law Professor Michael Asimow expresses concern that along with a host of other issues, a trend toward negative portrayals of lawyers could be drawing a different type of student into law careers than the positive role models that Hollywood used to promote in the “golden” days (16). Asimow also notes that most people do not have personal experience with lawyers and the legal system so their knowledge is gleaned from popular culture (7). When pop culture promotes lawyers as heroes there can be positive impact just as making them villains can have negative impact. Furthermore, unrealistic scenarios such as dramatic courtroom confessions and emphasis on forensic science can create unrealistic expectations of the viewing ...
Oct 1993. Retrieved November 18, 2010. Vol. 79. 134 pages (Document ID: 0747-0088) Published by American Bar Association
The case study that will be focused in this essay, will be the case Published by UC Berkley School of law. A Judge received a public reprimand for “friending” an attorney during a trail. This case was an interesting case, at first the thought of a judge becoming friends with an attorney did not spark any form of controversy in my mind at first. Yet, the text presents us with norms in terms of conduct. These norms are Independence, Impartiality, Integrity, and accountability.
This lawyer’s thirst for more power and more success overshadowed his judgment. And, so, he began to try to gain more clients by using a “runner,” a party not licensed to practice law. That was his first major error, as using a...
Despite the longstanding acceptance and promotion for the crime-fraud exception, it appears that the use of the exception to report fraud has been relatively scant and use of ethical rules to sanction lawyers is similarly rare. For those that may favor private regulation or the ability of the market to dictate its own terms it seems that the equilibrium reached was one without lawyers disclosing of their own accord. This could be just viewed as an information failure problem—even if the ability to report fraud up the ladder was technically already available, lack of knowledge may have prevented lawyers from reporting fraud when they otherwise would have done so.
It is the ethical duty of an attorney to report any violations of the law or legal misconduct, especially if the violation is committed by another attorney. While a civilian in the same situation may not be charged with a criminal offense, an attorney’s duty to uphold the law and maintain the honor of the profession obligates them to report crimes and legal misconduct. Penalties imposed
Although attorneys go through tough schooling and ethical prepping to be equipped to uphold the constitution, there are times when personal ethics can create a dilemma. This usually takes place when one person’s ethical standard clashes with a predetermined law or rule. An example of this is the issue of factual guilt vs. legal guilt. Factual guilt deals with whether or not an accused person has actually committed the crime they are accused of, and legal guilt deals with whether or not there is enough evidence to prove that the person did what they are accused of doing (Larsen 68). As a result of these types of guilt, many people who are factually guilty are not seen as legally guilty, and people who are not factually guilty are sometimes ruled