In defence of contextually sensitive moral activism

Donald Nicolson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Argues that there is no blanket justification for lawyers acting as neutral partisans. Instead, depending on the particular practice context and all the unique circumstances of each individual case, lawyers may be justified in refusing to represent particular individuals or (after moral dialogue) to do everything legal and not prohibited by professional rules for them.
LanguageEnglish
Pages269-275
Number of pages6
JournalLegal Ethics
Volume7
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2004

Fingerprint

lawyer
dialogue

Keywords

  • legal ethics
  • discrimation
  • legal system

Cite this

Nicolson, Donald. / In defence of contextually sensitive moral activism. In: Legal Ethics. 2004 ; Vol. 7, No. 2. pp. 269-275.
@article{4af934341d00466dbf15919881b3902b,
title = "In defence of contextually sensitive moral activism",
abstract = "Argues that there is no blanket justification for lawyers acting as neutral partisans. Instead, depending on the particular practice context and all the unique circumstances of each individual case, lawyers may be justified in refusing to represent particular individuals or (after moral dialogue) to do everything legal and not prohibited by professional rules for them.",
keywords = "legal ethics, discrimation, legal system",
author = "Donald Nicolson",
year = "2004",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "269--275",
journal = "Legal Ethics",
issn = "1460-728X",
number = "2",

}

Nicolson, D 2004, 'In defence of contextually sensitive moral activism' Legal Ethics, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 269-275.

In defence of contextually sensitive moral activism. / Nicolson, Donald.

In: Legal Ethics, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2004, p. 269-275.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - In defence of contextually sensitive moral activism

AU - Nicolson, Donald

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - Argues that there is no blanket justification for lawyers acting as neutral partisans. Instead, depending on the particular practice context and all the unique circumstances of each individual case, lawyers may be justified in refusing to represent particular individuals or (after moral dialogue) to do everything legal and not prohibited by professional rules for them.

AB - Argues that there is no blanket justification for lawyers acting as neutral partisans. Instead, depending on the particular practice context and all the unique circumstances of each individual case, lawyers may be justified in refusing to represent particular individuals or (after moral dialogue) to do everything legal and not prohibited by professional rules for them.

KW - legal ethics

KW - discrimation

KW - legal system

UR - http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/hart/legeth/2004/00000007/00000002/art00012

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 269

EP - 275

JO - Legal Ethics

T2 - Legal Ethics

JF - Legal Ethics

SN - 1460-728X

IS - 2

ER -