Partisan Approach In Legal Profession

One of the criticisms of an active moral approach to a lawyers legal ethics is that a shift in focus will ultimately lead to clients refusing to take unpopular clients and causes. The access to legal representation is necessary due to the nature of our adversarial system. The concern then is by welcoming moral engagement, will a tyrannical legal profession neglect to represent those who have performed unethical acts? Would a partisan approach, in which everyone is afforded legal representation, in fact be more ethical? Perspectives on ethics and morality are unquestionably diverse across society; and so too will they be across the legal profession. A plurality of moral perspectives amongst lawyers will reflect the fabric of a morally diverse

Much difficulty lies in regulating and guiding lawyers when governed by the messiness of moral pluralism. The partisan approach arguably provides lawyers with a coherent set of rules by which to act. However, while coherent in the duty to the client, it provides no adequate guide to resolve a lawyer’s conflict between the duty to the court, or the profession as a whole. Additionally, neither law nor justice is a concept capable of definite determination. By attempting to boil down the lawyer’s actions to inflexible principles, you cheapen the profession and the normative content provided by their role. The most apt solution is to embrace the moral aspect of the lawyers role, providing as much guidance as possible in how to engage in this enterprise, in acceptance of the reality that this is the best that can be done. Whilst seeking a universal theory of lawyering is externally attractive due to a clear and universal prescription, the practical reality is that does not provide lawyers with adequate theory to make sense of a particular client’s

While the wishes of the client are crucial in advocating for them, they are not necessarily determinative in concluding their best interests. This is considered a paternalistic approach to advocacy and is key feature of partisanship; founded on the belief the lawyer possess knowledge the client doesn’t have. The consequence of this is view is a restriction upon client autonomy. As such, this paternalistic approach necessary to the partisan lawyer is not compliant with ‘doing whatever a client asks’. A paternalist lawyer is forced to act towards what they believe are in the best interests of the client, this may require at times a departure from the clients wishes even if what is asked is “within the bounds of the law”. However, whether partisanship is best poised to evaluate their client’s best interests is arguable. As discussed, for lawyers to truly understand and fully advise a client of their legal position a moral evaluation must take place. With partisanship so traditionally devoid of this moral evaluation the effectiveness of advocation for a client’s best interests is