As a legal expert, I have spent years studying and analyzing the ethical implications of lawyers representing clients who may be morally questionable. It is a complex and controversial topic that has sparked debates and discussions in the legal community. The fact is that the behavior of certain lawyers on behalf of their terrible clients is shameful and should be understood as such. These attorneys show that they don't understand their actions as immoral.
Since the law is necessarily incomplete and because these lawyers have no personal morality to guide them, it is society's responsibility to make these lawyers worry “about what other people will say, think and do” so that these lawyers “guide their conduct accordingly.”Have you ever wondered why lawyers defend even people they suspect are guilty of? It turns out that lawyers are just doing their job, argues César Arjona, associate professor of Legal Ethics at Esade, in the Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence. Faced with public opinion, the lawyer replied that he was not defending a murderer, but rather a legal process that aims to help people without resources who cannot afford a lawyer like him. As a lawyer, you draft a binding contract in which states commit not only to ignoring the interests of the people who live there, but also to compensate companies if a court finds them responsible for the damages caused to the indigenous group. My moral decisions must always take into account the possible consequences of my choices for myself and for the people around me. When lawyers are literally creating the law, they can no longer say that they are not morally responsible.
Defense lawyers exist, and they have a constitutional mandate, to control state power and prevent it from exercising excessive police surveillance. In fact, instead of abiding by the laws of the countries involved, the lawyers were literally making up things. My guiding moral principle is that I will never put my role as a lawyer before my role as a human being. Perhaps believing in the idea that lawyers are not morally responsible for their actions, Smiley gladly accepted the support. Issues in Ethics invites lawyers and others to share the principles that guide their professional lives.
The lawyer who devised the principle of the free movement of oil is morally responsible for this idea. Harvard law students are “choosing a livable future” by committing to interrupting things as usual until legal industry leaders abandon big oil companies,” Regunburg wrote, directly refuting the “lawyer as a contract killer” or the lawyer as “an amoral ethical need.” But is that an excuse? Like an employer who justifies the exploitation of workers or the manufacture of a substandard product by invoking market morality, a lawyer who claims that he is only playing a role in a system that produces justice is also relinquishing his responsibility. It is the lawyer in an institutional context, and it is this context that justifies the lawyer's role, rights and obligations. As the following statements suggest, students aspire to become lawyers for all kinds of reasons, but almost every list includes promoting justice, doing good, or, in general, making the world a better place. In particular, lawyers who operate in transnational environments work for large corporations and in very diverse contexts where legal conditions are constantly changing.
I show how this theory of amorality works well in criminal defense cases, where the legal context is very clear and stable.