Lawyer's Relationship With Their Clients example essay topic

The issues discussed by Thomas Nagel in "Ruthlessness in Public Life" are that continuities and discontinuities exist between the public and private morality. Public officials need to recognize that there are clear limitations on actions which conflict with morality concerns. Nagel explored how public and private sectors need to adhere to certain ordinary moral standards. To rectify these issues of construed morality, Nagel explores a few options. Nagel states that "If one of them takes on a public role, he / she accepts certain obligations, certain restrictions, and certain limitations on what he / she accepts" This statement incurs that public officials have distinct authority over the public which maybe construed by personal interests. A plausible theory is to prevent impersonal forces created by institutions.

The next option recognizes the discontinuity between individual mortality and public mortality, which will provide either an addition or restriction within varying institutions. Nagel indicated that in his own opinion is that morality should be based on acceptability to each individual responsible for the actions and not hold the whole institution or all parties liable. The conclusion presented by Nagel is that the theory of obligation can explain special features of public morality. Also those individuals can take steps to restrict certain choices. Nagel also concluded that the institutional structure shields individualism causing impractical characters of public obligations. Some of the rationale leading to these conclusions is that individuals will exercise the institutions power to effectively satisfy their own personal needs.

This action creates neglect and abuse of the institutions proper purpose. The holder of public office needs to become aware of the distinct obligations assigned to their role. Another reason Nagel discusses is that impersonal morality arises when institutions basically over extend themselves by establishing many jobs that serve no actual context. Nagel presented many valid issues however there are a few unstated assumptions. Throughout the paper Nagel refers to an "institution" he described the word institution as "public crimes are committed by individuals who play roles in political, military, and economic institutions". The assumption is upon the reader to realize that Nagel is referring to any institute which affects public roles.

It is easy to point a finger towards political, economic and military institutions, but there are a lot of other institutions outside of this scope. Nagel refers to an individual in the "Ruthlessness in Public Life" as a person which plays a role within an institution. Under this definition is it correct that the reader can assume that the mail carrier, secretary or janitors are capable of causing public immorality. Nagel should polish this term for the reader a little more by specifying that individuals refers to a person of certain assigned authority, or a decision maker. Criticisms of lawyers are the topic in Richard A. Wasserstrom's article "Layers as Professionals: Some Moral Issues". Wasserstrom broke this topic into two main areas of discussion.

The first suggests that lawyers operate with essentially no regard for any negative impact of their efforts on the world at large. Analysis of the relationship that exists between the lawyer and their client was the second topic of discussion. "Here the charge is that it is the lawyer-client relationship which is morally objectionable because it is a relationship which the lawyer dominates and in which the lawyer typically, and perhaps inevitably, treats the client in both an impersonal and a paternalistic fashion". Wasserstrom considers a few options with in his discussion concerning a multitude of aspects faced by lawyers. "The lawyer's situation is different from that of other professionals. The lawyer is vulnerable to some moral criticism that does not as readily or as easily attach to any other professional".

This statement acknowledges that lawyers are faced with a variety of issues that many other professional do not have to cope with. Wasserstrom also considers the fact that in many situations lawyers have the optional ability to remove themselves form issues that may contradict their individual ethics. "Having once agreed to represent the client, the lawyer in under an obligation to do his or her best to defend that person at trial". With in the process of contracting a lawyer, the lawyer has the option of acceptance or refusal of representing the client. Therefore the lawyer can asses the case and decide if it violates any of their own individual ethics. The fact that lawyers are positioned in an amoral world was one of Wasserstrom arguments.

A lawyer's relationship with their clients consists of complex inequalities. Some of the reasons that Wasserstrom indicates that a lawyer exists in an amoral world is explicitly evident in the example of the Watergate cover up. "I think, at least a plausible hypothesis that the predominance of lawyers was not accidental". Wasserstrom goes one to say "the lawyer as professional comes to inhabit a simplified universe which is strikingly amoral".

These two statements present clear support for the conclusion that Wasserstrom believes lawyers are positioned in an amoral world. The second conclusion is defended by many statements and situations concerning the lawyer-client relationship. Wasserstrom identifies a few dominant traits with in this relationship containing inequality, created by role-differentiation, and vulnerability. "Lawyers in particular do, typically, enter into relationships in virtue of the paternalistic and impersonal fashion in which the client is viewed and treated".

Later Wasserstrom continues to describe client's vulnerability. "the inability of the client to communicate with the lawyer in the lawyer's own tongue surely helps to make the client less than a person in the lawyer's eyes - and perhaps even in the eyes of the client". This statement indicates the position the client is situated in. Wasserstrom continues to discuses the label of a professional, and indicated that professionals have completed lengthy and difficult studies which cause the professional to create a self image of superiority towards others. Wasserstrom argued may solid issues of relevance toward lawyers and professionals. However he paints a dark image of professionals and perhaps he should indicate that not all professionals should be stereotyped as corrupt. In this article I found no inclination that would state that there are many lawyers which work for charitable causes, and practice ethical standards.