律师的批判道德:律师伦理的四种途径

C. Parker
{"title":"律师的批判道德:律师伦理的四种途径","authors":"C. Parker","doi":"10.26180/5DB7F6D64AB05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Drawing on the scholarship of legal ethicists and case studies of Australian legal practice, this article proposes a set of conceptual tools for assessing the ethics-in-practice and moral judgment of Australian lawyers. The article proposes that different approaches to legal ethical reasoning can be distinguished by the ways they answer the following questions: (1) to what extent should lawyers' ethics be determined by a special and particular social role that lawyers should play? (2) how should lawyer and client relate to one another in relation to ethical issues? Should one's view of morality prevail over the other? (3) what is the lawyer's obligation towards law and justice? (4) to what extent should lawyers in their daily work make sure they care for people and relationships? On this basis I identify four broad approaches to ethical reasoning in legal practice: adversarial advocate; responsible lawyer; moral activism; and ethics of care. A fifth approach, based solely on the law of professional responsibility and rules of professional conduct, is discussed and dismissed as an invalid ethical approach.","PeriodicalId":44672,"journal":{"name":"Monash University Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"49-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"25","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Critical Morality for Lawyers: Four Approaches to Lawyers' Ethics\",\"authors\":\"C. Parker\",\"doi\":\"10.26180/5DB7F6D64AB05\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Drawing on the scholarship of legal ethicists and case studies of Australian legal practice, this article proposes a set of conceptual tools for assessing the ethics-in-practice and moral judgment of Australian lawyers. The article proposes that different approaches to legal ethical reasoning can be distinguished by the ways they answer the following questions: (1) to what extent should lawyers' ethics be determined by a special and particular social role that lawyers should play? (2) how should lawyer and client relate to one another in relation to ethical issues? Should one's view of morality prevail over the other? (3) what is the lawyer's obligation towards law and justice? (4) to what extent should lawyers in their daily work make sure they care for people and relationships? On this basis I identify four broad approaches to ethical reasoning in legal practice: adversarial advocate; responsible lawyer; moral activism; and ethics of care. A fifth approach, based solely on the law of professional responsibility and rules of professional conduct, is discussed and dismissed as an invalid ethical approach.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Monash University Law Review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"49-74\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"25\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Monash University Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26180/5DB7F6D64AB05\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26180/5DB7F6D64AB05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

摘要

根据法律伦理学家的学术研究和澳大利亚法律实践的案例研究,本文提出了一套概念性工具,用于评估澳大利亚律师的实践伦理和道德判断。本文提出,不同的法律伦理推理方法可以通过它们回答以下问题的方式来区分:(1)律师的道德在多大程度上应该由律师应该扮演的特殊社会角色决定?(2)律师和客户在道德问题上应如何相互联系?一个人的道德观应该凌驾于另一个人吗?(3)律师对法律和司法的义务是什么?(4)律师在日常工作中应该在多大程度上确保他们关心人和关系?在此基础上,我确定了法律实践中道德推理的四种广泛方法:对抗性倡导;负责任的律师;道德活动;以及关怀伦理。第五种方法完全基于职业责任法和职业行为规则,被讨论并视为无效的道德方法而不予考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Critical Morality for Lawyers: Four Approaches to Lawyers' Ethics
Drawing on the scholarship of legal ethicists and case studies of Australian legal practice, this article proposes a set of conceptual tools for assessing the ethics-in-practice and moral judgment of Australian lawyers. The article proposes that different approaches to legal ethical reasoning can be distinguished by the ways they answer the following questions: (1) to what extent should lawyers' ethics be determined by a special and particular social role that lawyers should play? (2) how should lawyer and client relate to one another in relation to ethical issues? Should one's view of morality prevail over the other? (3) what is the lawyer's obligation towards law and justice? (4) to what extent should lawyers in their daily work make sure they care for people and relationships? On this basis I identify four broad approaches to ethical reasoning in legal practice: adversarial advocate; responsible lawyer; moral activism; and ethics of care. A fifth approach, based solely on the law of professional responsibility and rules of professional conduct, is discussed and dismissed as an invalid ethical approach.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信