Lawyers' duties, adversarialism and partisanship in UK legal ethics

Donald Nicolson, Julian Webb

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In very broad terms, there can be said to be two main concerns that have been debated in this journal: the "what" and the "how" of lawyers' ethics. The first of these focuses on the content of lawyers' ethics, both empirically and normatively, examining issues such as whether lawyers should act for any client irrespective of the morality of their objectives,2 how far lawyers should go in pursuing client interests,3 how to reconcile conflicts of interest,4 whether there should be limits to the lawyer's duty of confidentiality,5 how to safeguard clients' money6 and how best to ensure access to justice.7 The second concern of legal ethics raises the question of how to ensure that lawyers actually uphold whatever norms are regarded as appropriate; or, for those who recognise that there are no categorically correct answers to ethical dilemmas, with the question of how to ensure that lawyers at least care about and are committed to acting morally.
LanguageEnglish
Pages133-140
Number of pages7
JournalLegal Ethics
Volume7
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2004

Fingerprint

lawyer
moral philosophy
conflict of interest
morality

Keywords

  • legal ethics

Cite this

Nicolson, Donald ; Webb, Julian. / Lawyers' duties, adversarialism and partisanship in UK legal ethics. In: Legal Ethics. 2004 ; Vol. 7, No. 2. pp. 133-140.
@article{ac50066c6fd64aebbdf39c19f59bb632,
title = "Lawyers' duties, adversarialism and partisanship in UK legal ethics",
abstract = "In very broad terms, there can be said to be two main concerns that have been debated in this journal: the {"}what{"} and the {"}how{"} of lawyers' ethics. The first of these focuses on the content of lawyers' ethics, both empirically and normatively, examining issues such as whether lawyers should act for any client irrespective of the morality of their objectives,2 how far lawyers should go in pursuing client interests,3 how to reconcile conflicts of interest,4 whether there should be limits to the lawyer's duty of confidentiality,5 how to safeguard clients' money6 and how best to ensure access to justice.7 The second concern of legal ethics raises the question of how to ensure that lawyers actually uphold whatever norms are regarded as appropriate; or, for those who recognise that there are no categorically correct answers to ethical dilemmas, with the question of how to ensure that lawyers at least care about and are committed to acting morally.",
keywords = "legal ethics",
author = "Donald Nicolson and Julian Webb",
year = "2004",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "133--140",
journal = "Legal Ethics",
issn = "1460-728X",
number = "2",

}

Nicolson, D & Webb, J 2004, 'Lawyers' duties, adversarialism and partisanship in UK legal ethics' Legal Ethics, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 133-140.

Lawyers' duties, adversarialism and partisanship in UK legal ethics. / Nicolson, Donald; Webb, Julian.

In: Legal Ethics, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2004, p. 133-140.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Lawyers' duties, adversarialism and partisanship in UK legal ethics

AU - Nicolson, Donald

AU - Webb, Julian

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - In very broad terms, there can be said to be two main concerns that have been debated in this journal: the "what" and the "how" of lawyers' ethics. The first of these focuses on the content of lawyers' ethics, both empirically and normatively, examining issues such as whether lawyers should act for any client irrespective of the morality of their objectives,2 how far lawyers should go in pursuing client interests,3 how to reconcile conflicts of interest,4 whether there should be limits to the lawyer's duty of confidentiality,5 how to safeguard clients' money6 and how best to ensure access to justice.7 The second concern of legal ethics raises the question of how to ensure that lawyers actually uphold whatever norms are regarded as appropriate; or, for those who recognise that there are no categorically correct answers to ethical dilemmas, with the question of how to ensure that lawyers at least care about and are committed to acting morally.

AB - In very broad terms, there can be said to be two main concerns that have been debated in this journal: the "what" and the "how" of lawyers' ethics. The first of these focuses on the content of lawyers' ethics, both empirically and normatively, examining issues such as whether lawyers should act for any client irrespective of the morality of their objectives,2 how far lawyers should go in pursuing client interests,3 how to reconcile conflicts of interest,4 whether there should be limits to the lawyer's duty of confidentiality,5 how to safeguard clients' money6 and how best to ensure access to justice.7 The second concern of legal ethics raises the question of how to ensure that lawyers actually uphold whatever norms are regarded as appropriate; or, for those who recognise that there are no categorically correct answers to ethical dilemmas, with the question of how to ensure that lawyers at least care about and are committed to acting morally.

KW - legal ethics

UR - http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/hart/legeth/2004/00000007/00000002/art00001

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 133

EP - 140

JO - Legal Ethics

T2 - Legal Ethics

JF - Legal Ethics

SN - 1460-728X

IS - 2

ER -