David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
After discussing the origins of Model Rule 8.4(c), which purports to prohibit all deceit and misrepresentation, and states' recent amendments to the rule to accommodate lawyer involvement in some covert activity, Professor Fortune proposes a broad rule that would allow lawyers to supervise and actively participate in lawful investigations. As an alternative he proposes that states follow Virginia and qualify the rule against deceit by adding 'that reflects adversely on the person's fitness as a lawyer.' In this article, Professor Fortune discusses the concept of choice of evils in the context of deceit to further a societally-beneficial end.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Anthony de Jasay (1990). A Stocktaking of Perversities. Critical Review 4 (4):537-544.
Claus Bundesen (2000). Neural Networks for Selection and the Luce Choice Rule. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):471-472.
Tore A. Nielsen (2000). A Review of Mentation in Rem and NRem Sleep: “Covert” Rem Sleep as a Possible Reconciliation of Two Opposing Models. [REVIEW] Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (6):851-866.
Allan Hazlett (2006). Possible Evils. Ratio 19 (2):191–198.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?