2004Legal EthicsRequires access

Lawyers' Duties, Adversarialism and Partisanship in UK Legal Ethics

Donald Nicolson, Julian Webb

Open publisher page 6 citations

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 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.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In very broad terms, there can be said to be two main concerns that have been debated in this journal: the what and the 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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 6 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available 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 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.

Key concepts: Legal ethics, Duty, Economic Justice, Law, Morality, Confidentiality, Political science, Sociology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Lawyers' Duties, Adversarialism and Partisanship in UK Legal Ethics — Research Paper | ScholarLens