Expectations in the Mirror: Lawyer Professionalism and the Errors of Mandatory Aspirations

Keith W. Rizzardi
{"title":"Expectations in the Mirror: Lawyer Professionalism and the Errors of Mandatory Aspirations","authors":"Keith W. Rizzardi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3490770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For years, Florida has been a leader in the professionalism movement, and state leaders have created new documents and standards to make professionalism enforceable. The rest of the nation can learn from Florida’s errors, because the Sunshine State has blurred the lines between professionalism and legal ethics. In fact, history shows that Florida is simply repeating the same mistakes that have been addressed time and time again as our system of legal ethics has evolved. At times, Florida’s professionalism concepts even contradict themselves. Indeed, from a jurisprudential perspective, even H.L.A. Hart and Lon Fuller— who otherwise disagreed over the morality of law—would probably agree that Florida’s attempt to mandate professionalism is fundamentally flawed. This Article calls for more realistic expectations in the professionalism dialogue and offers five recommendations. First, the content of the professionalism documents—and the “Professionalism Expectations” in particular—should be reduced, and limited to worthy, not banal, aspirations. Second, some of the ideas currently labelled as professionalism actually reflect minimum demands of lawyering that should be integrated into the rules or commentary of legal ethics. Third, abundant options exist for improved professionalism education, but a more informed and strategic approach is needed. Fourth, mandatory mentoring could serve as a constructive alternative to the current quasi-disciplinary panel process. Finally, if mandatory professionalism is to remain, a more transparent system is needed, both to comply with the Florida Constitution and to maintain credibility. Ultimately, while recognizing the problems with lawyer professionalism, this Article concludes that Florida’s bifurcated system of ethical rules and professionalism standards is significantly flawed—just like the people it regulates.","PeriodicalId":81266,"journal":{"name":"Florida State University law review. Florida State University. College of Law","volume":"76 1","pages":"691-772"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Florida State University law review. Florida State University. College of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3490770","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

For years, Florida has been a leader in the professionalism movement, and state leaders have created new documents and standards to make professionalism enforceable. The rest of the nation can learn from Florida’s errors, because the Sunshine State has blurred the lines between professionalism and legal ethics. In fact, history shows that Florida is simply repeating the same mistakes that have been addressed time and time again as our system of legal ethics has evolved. At times, Florida’s professionalism concepts even contradict themselves. Indeed, from a jurisprudential perspective, even H.L.A. Hart and Lon Fuller— who otherwise disagreed over the morality of law—would probably agree that Florida’s attempt to mandate professionalism is fundamentally flawed. This Article calls for more realistic expectations in the professionalism dialogue and offers five recommendations. First, the content of the professionalism documents—and the “Professionalism Expectations” in particular—should be reduced, and limited to worthy, not banal, aspirations. Second, some of the ideas currently labelled as professionalism actually reflect minimum demands of lawyering that should be integrated into the rules or commentary of legal ethics. Third, abundant options exist for improved professionalism education, but a more informed and strategic approach is needed. Fourth, mandatory mentoring could serve as a constructive alternative to the current quasi-disciplinary panel process. Finally, if mandatory professionalism is to remain, a more transparent system is needed, both to comply with the Florida Constitution and to maintain credibility. Ultimately, while recognizing the problems with lawyer professionalism, this Article concludes that Florida’s bifurcated system of ethical rules and professionalism standards is significantly flawed—just like the people it regulates.
镜中的期望:律师职业精神与强制性期望的错误
多年来,佛罗里达州一直是专业主义运动的领导者,州领导人制定了新的文件和标准,使专业主义得以实施。全国其他地区可以从佛罗里达州的错误中吸取教训,因为这个阳光之州已经模糊了专业精神和法律道德之间的界限。事实上,历史表明,佛罗里达州只是在重复同样的错误,而随着我们法律道德体系的发展,这些错误已经被一次又一次地解决了。有时,佛罗里达州的专业理念甚至自相矛盾。事实上,从法理学的角度来看,即使是H.L.A. Hart和Lon Fuller——他们在法律道德问题上意见不一——也可能会同意佛罗里达州强制推行专业主义的尝试从根本上是有缺陷的。本文呼吁在专业对话中有更现实的期望,并提出五点建议。首先,职业化文件的内容——尤其是“职业化期望”——应该减少,并限制在有价值的,而不是平庸的愿望上。其次,一些目前被贴上专业主义标签的理念实际上反映了律师最起码的要求,这些要求应该被纳入法律伦理的规则或评论中。第三,提高职业素养教育的选择是丰富的,但需要一种更加明智和战略性的方法。第四,强制指导可以作为当前准学科小组程序的建设性替代方案。最后,如果要保持强制性的专业精神,就需要一个更透明的系统,既要符合佛罗里达州宪法,又要保持可信度。最后,在认识到律师专业精神的问题的同时,本文得出结论,佛罗里达州的道德规则和专业标准的双重体系存在显著缺陷——就像它所监管的人一样。
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
小红书