Rank Strangers to Me: Shaffer and Cochran's Friendship Model of Moral Counseling in the Law Office

Jack L. Sammons
{"title":"Rank Strangers to Me: Shaffer and Cochran's Friendship Model of Moral Counseling in the Law Office","authors":"Jack L. Sammons","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1352658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This is my argument against a model for law office moral counseling based on friendship and moral commonalities. Reading Shaffer and Cochran's Lawyers, Clients, and Moral Responsibility, led me to the conclusion that we would be far better off thinking of our clients as, in the words of the gospel song, \"rank strangers.\" And we would be better off relating to these strangers not as if we were in a traditional friendship with them, but as the rhetoricians that I believe our lawyering tradition teaches us to be. Whether I have our tradition's lesson right or not, and I only invite the reader to consider this possibility here, I think any heuristic model for moral counseling in the law office has to start with an interpretation of the story of which we lawyers are a part. For this is where we are likely to find our most justified moral resources for counseling. Shaffer and Cochran, because they accepted a hostile academic critique of the practice, one that separates role morality from personal morality in defense of a false integrity, failed to do this and, in so failing, were not able to provide an adequate heuristic model for moral counseling in the law office.","PeriodicalId":144785,"journal":{"name":"University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1352658","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This is my argument against a model for law office moral counseling based on friendship and moral commonalities. Reading Shaffer and Cochran's Lawyers, Clients, and Moral Responsibility, led me to the conclusion that we would be far better off thinking of our clients as, in the words of the gospel song, "rank strangers." And we would be better off relating to these strangers not as if we were in a traditional friendship with them, but as the rhetoricians that I believe our lawyering tradition teaches us to be. Whether I have our tradition's lesson right or not, and I only invite the reader to consider this possibility here, I think any heuristic model for moral counseling in the law office has to start with an interpretation of the story of which we lawyers are a part. For this is where we are likely to find our most justified moral resources for counseling. Shaffer and Cochran, because they accepted a hostile academic critique of the practice, one that separates role morality from personal morality in defense of a false integrity, failed to do this and, in so failing, were not able to provide an adequate heuristic model for moral counseling in the law office.
排名陌生人:谢弗和科克伦的律师事务所道德咨询的友谊模式
这是我反对基于友谊和道德共性的律师事务所道德咨询模式的论点。读了谢弗和科克伦的《律师、客户和道德责任》,我得出了这样的结论:用福音歌曲的歌词来说,我们最好把我们的客户视为“等级的陌生人”。我们最好不要把这些陌生人当作传统的友谊来对待,而是像修辞学家那样对待,我相信我们的律师传统教会我们这样做。无论我的传统教训是否正确,我只邀请读者在这里考虑这种可能性,我认为律师事务所道德咨询的任何启发式模型都必须从对我们律师所参与的故事的解释开始。因为这是我们最有可能找到最合理的道德资源来进行咨询的地方。Shaffer和Cochran,因为他们接受了一种对这种做法充满敌意的学术批评,一种将角色道德与个人道德分开来捍卫虚假诚信的批评,未能做到这一点,而且,在这种失败中,无法为律师事务所的道德咨询提供充分的启发式模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信