Role Of Ethics And Ethical Dilemmas In The Life Of A Legal Professional

Coverage of this Article

Key Takeaways

-The primary goal of legal ethics is to preserve the integrity and reputation of the legal profession.

What Is An Ethical Dilemma

-An ethical dilemma (also known as an ethical paradox or moral dilemma) is a challenge in the decision-making process between two choices, none of which is completely permissible from an ethical standpoint. Although we face many ethical and moral dilemmas in our daily lives, the majority of them have simple solutions.

Ethical Dilemmas And Philosophers

-Would you kill ten people to save one? What is the meaning of life? How do you know that God exists? Philosophers have a soft spot for such questions. By “such” questions I mean the type of questions most of us don't know the answers to them offhand.

Importance Of Ethical Dilemmas And Ethics In The Life Of A Lawyer

-Ethics are standards and ideals that, along with codes of ethics and regulations, govern a profession, such as the legal profession.

Conclusion

-It is self-evident that legal ethics and the legal profession are inextricably linked. The presence of codified professional ethics for the legal profession demonstrates that ethics is necessary in the legal profession.

Key Takeaways

• The primary goal of legal ethics is to preserve the integrity and reputation of the legal profession.
• In the legal profession, people often face ethical dilemmas like to be aware that their client is guilty, and that their client is adamant about going to trial and testifying.
• An ethical dilemma occurs when an agent is faced with a choice in which either of the possible alternatives requires the agent to breach or cheat on their ethical values.
• The Epicurean Paradox, also known as the Problem of Evil, highlights the inconsistency between the presence of evil in the universe and the supposed existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-benevolent, and all-present god. Studying such ethical dilemmas increase ones thinking capacity and gives them another possible perspective of the world.
• The legal profession is unavoidably the cornerstone of the edifice of government. If it is undermined and subjected to the corrosive and demoralising force of those who are controlled by art, greed, benefit, or some other unethical motive, the arch will collapse sooner or later. The country's survival is dependent on the preservation of the shrine of justice, pure and unrolled by the advocates. It cannot be so sustained unless the practitioners of the legal profession's actions and intentions are what they object to.
• Professional ethics is vital in the legal profession because lawyers and judges are essential to the implementation of the law, and the Rule of Law is based on concepts of justice, dignity, and equality. If they do not follow and promote these legal values, the statute will be tarnished, and people will turn to other ways of settling dispute. With a spike in popular resentment, the Rule of Law will collapse.

What Is An Ethical Dilemma

An ethical dilemma (also known as an ethical paradox or moral dilemma) is a challenge in the decision-making process between two choices, none of which is completely permissible from an ethical standpoint. Although we face many ethical and moral dilemmas in our daily lives, the majority of them have simple solutions.

On the other hand, ethical quandaries are extremely complex problems that cannot be easily solved. As a result, everyone's ability to find the best solution in such situations is critical.

In almost all aspects of their lives, including family, social and most commonly professional, each individual can experience an ethical dilemma.

Philosophers often try to find an answer to these ethical dilemmas. But most of the times they end up contending that no true ethical dilemmas exist, whilst others claim that they are inevitable and do not actually point to a faulty philosophy of ethics, whereas some of them gives rise to their own ethical dilemmas. Moral dilemmas are thus a means of exploring what an ethical method can or should not do.

Ethical Dilemmas And Philosophers

Would you kill ten people to save one? What is the meaning of life? How do you know that God exists? Philosophers have a soft spot for such questions. By “such” questions I mean the type of questions most of us don't know the answers to them offhand.

Similarly, for ages, we've got to encounter many, philosophers who questioned or challenged the existence of God.

One of the foremost determining challenges on God's existence is additionally the foundation of one of the foremost demanded, but least answerable, questions that we, as thinking beings, face.

WHY DOES GOD ALLOW EVIL?

And this question gives rise to The Epicurean Paradox. In this paradox, Epicurus points out the contradiction between the existence of evil in the world and the supposed existence of a god and who is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnibenevolent (all-loving), and omnipresent (present everywhere). He argues that perhaps God isn't powerful enough to prevent evil, or even he isn't knowledgeable enough to know about it.

But In my opinion, God has created both the energies, i.e. negative and positive equally to maintain a balance between both. As we can’t understand the pleasure of filling our stomach if we’ve never been hungry, similarly, we won’t admire or acknowledge the good if we have no idea about what bad/evil is!

Epicurus advance the argument of evil to disapprove either the existence of god or prove that maybe God isn’t loving, knowledgeable, powerful enough to stop evil. As if there is God, then there shouldn’t be evil. At one level, this argument could seem very persuasive. But, if look into this argument deeply, we will see that that the whole concept of evil, doesn’t have a valid place in a world where there is no God!

According to Bhagavad Gita, “the existence of evil does not point away from God, It points towards God.” It means As everything in this world happens with the permission of God. God made evil to make all of us realise the value of being good or the sufferings of an evil person at the end. As we all know that an evil person either ends up enhancing himself into a good person or destroys everything for himself.

Even Quran and other holy books state that the problem of evil intellectually incoherent as good can not exist without its opposite!

This simply means that everything in this world has two sides, whether a coin or a magnet. And this is how those things work! Neither a coin be a coin without its both sides nor a magnet can be a magnet without its both ends. Similarly, this world would be less-worldly if there will be no evil!

In the Socratic perspective, evil may be a term simply used as a synonym to explain wrongdoings of all kind. Harmfulness is that the only evaluative criterion used for assessing evil! If a behaviour isn't harmful in the slightest degree, then there's no basis for defining the evil of that behaviour. Socrates believed that ignorance and fear are always the origins of wrongdoing.

For Aristotle, God is a metaphysical necessity, but not an object of worship. In his philosophy, there are almost as many ways to talk of badness as of goodness. It is the good or the good goal that frames and organises Aristotle's analysis in most of his areas of interest.

Plato states that man is endowed with the knowledge of good and evil before coming to this world. This knowledge existed in his soul all good and evil are ingrained in the individual. The life of reason and good behaviour is to be happy. Good itself is happiness and the soul's paradise. It is its reward. He also believed that what we see isn't the reality it could be the shadows of actual reality and maybe there is the World in which we live is nothing but an illusion. Maybe God and evil are two hands that work together. Added to this, according to Plato, only end/consequence matter, not the path you adopt to achieve the conclusion (I.e., bad or good).

Importance Of Ethical Dilemmas And Ethics In The Life Of A Lawyer

Ethics are standards and ideals that, along with codes of ethics and regulations, govern a profession, such as the legal profession. They serve as an important roadmap to ensure correct and fair behaviour in the practice of the law on a regular basis. There is a very similar connection between ethics and the legal profession. Law is a respectable profession. Therefore, it is a vital part of the practice to comply with one's behaviour and actions. Legal ethics may be described simply as a code of conduct, written or otherwise. A code of ethics is intended to govern the actions of a practising legal practitioner in courtrooms against the court, the presiding judge, his client, and his adversaries.

Every lawyer in today's legal world faces ethical challenges ranging from responsibilities to uphold in the practice of law (such as Continuing Legal Education and biannual registration) to issues arising from client representation (such as conflicts and client fraud).

The State has established the legal profession to meet the public's litigation needs. So, it's not a business, it's a profession. There are also three basic foundations for legal ethics that provide an insight into the essence of the legal profession:

1. The organization of its members to carry out its function;
2. Maintain such intellectual as well as ethical principles to safeguard professional dignity;
3. Pecuniary benefits must be subject to the interest of the customer.

Ethics is a basic requirement of every profession, not just the legal profession. Ethics thereby essentially refers to human behaviour and moral standards. A legal practitioner or lawyer must abide by certain ethical codes in relation to fair dealing practises with the customer and must also comply with the confidentiality standards required between them to maintain his own personal rights.

The Bar Council Of India Prescribes Certain Ethical Duties That An Advocate Must Fulfil

• Appearing in a correct dress code: Law is one of the few professions with a specified uniform. The court requires the lawyer to demonstrate proper dress code necessarily. There are certain examples where the cases have either been delayed or rejected because of the lack of an appropriate dress code that the representative lawyer should have adopted.
• When in court, a lawyer must maintain a professional demeanour and uphold the integrity of the judicial office: In the case of U.P. Sales Tax Service Association v Taxation Bar Association (1995), it was held that if an advocate does not honour or recognise the integrity of a judicial official, the life of a free society is jeopardised. It has the power to dampen the court's spirit.
• Act with dignity: Every advocate before the court (while arguing his case) is expected to have self-respect and to behave himself in a dignified way. In re D.C. Saxena, AIR (1966), an advocate was given the authority to file a complaint against a judicial officer. However, such a complaint must be filed with the appropriate authorities.
• Refuse to behave illegally against the opposition: A lawyer must therefore prohibit his client from engaging in unfair tactics against the court, dissenting lawyers, opposite sides, or even co-parties. The advocate must exercise restraint and clarify the ramifications and repercussions of such unethical conduct. This provision also allows an attorney to refuse to serve a client if he or she persists in engaging in such unethical conduct.
• No private communication- The law of not communicating in private was well clarified in the case of Rizwan-Ul-Hassan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1953) It was noted that a lawyer could not attempt by any improper means to seek favourable rulings, including the court's brattling or private communication in favour. This provision also forbids any private contact with the judge about a pending lawsuit. The fact that a counsel attempts to manipulate the court's decisions by holding a private contact with the judge is seen as a gross form of professional misconduct.
• In a court of law, an advocate must use his own judgement and refrain from using strong language: This is another essential rule, which states that the lawyer should have a sense of opinion on the situation he or she represents. In the case of M.Y. Shareef & Others. v. Hon'ble Judges of Nagpur High Court &Ors. (1954), it was determined that an advocate is more than just the client's mouthpiece. Legal representatives ought to exercise their own judgement. An advocate must therefore prevent scurrilous comments from being used in arguments. During court proceedings they shall use untampered words.
• Refuse to appear before relations: Section 30 of the Advocates' Act, 1961 lays down this provision. This law was set up to prevent conflicts of interest and judgemental prejudice. If the presiding judicial officer and an advocate have a family relationship, the advocate must not appear in such cases and must seek a change in bench.

Conclusion

It is self-evident that legal ethics and the legal profession are inextricably linked. The presence of codified professional ethics for the legal profession demonstrates that ethics is necessary in the legal profession. The Bar Council maintains that advocates comply with the regulations on legal ethics and clothing (professional attire of lawyers). Ethics in advocacy has as its primary goal as the preservation of the legal profession's reputation and honesty. Legal ethics ensures that the legal profession represents society honestly and presents each case in the most formal manner possible, allowing litigants to trust not just their legal representative or judge, but also the justice system. In order for Indian courts to work properly, not only lawyers but also judges must have a sense of and understanding of legal ethics.

Reading and understanding ethical dilemmas helps to increase your thinking capability and instinct asLegal professionals often have to follow their instinct while dealing with an ethical issue. Another primary goal of legal ethics is to foster a spirit of mutual collaboration among the bar, court, and clients. There are ethical standards in place for the prosecutor and his client, the opponent and the witness being interrogated, and, of course, the Judge and the prosecutor.