While debate continues over the role of the lawyer in society, this article notes that the recently amended professional conduct rules of both barristers and solicitors and the proposed draft National Law prioritise the duty to the court and the administration of justice. In addition, the Australian Learning and Teaching Council's threshold learning outcomes for legal education corroborate these obligations when they assert that the role of a lawyer includes a professional responsibility to promote justice in service to the community. (...) By referring to Australia's proposed regulatory framework and associated national professional conduct rules, and drawing upon the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct and a body of US literature that refers to lawyers as public citizens, this article will argue that Australian lawyers owe a duty to the public in their everyday dealings with clients. In doing so, this article will refer to some theories of citizenship; and what it means for lawyers, in a practical sense, to act as public citizens. (shrink)

In “Professional Detachment: The Executioner of Paris,” I concluded with the cheap and some would say libelous suggestion that lawyers might accurately be described as serial liars, because they repeatedly try to induce others to believe in the truth of propositions or in the validity of arguments that they believe to be false. Good lawyers have responded with some indignation that, in calling zealous advocacy “lying,” I have misdescribed the practice of law. I wish to explain why I believe that (...) it is the practice of lawyering that engages in misdescription. (shrink)

Engineering is a social enterprise. A successful engineering career depends on how engineers manage their relationships with diverse stakeholders including managers, clients, contractors, and the p...

In the movieRegarding Henry, the main character, Henry Turner, is a lawyer who suffers brain damage as a result of being shot during a robbery. Before being wounded, the Old Henry Turner had been a successful lawyer, admired as a fierce competitor and well-known for his killer instinct. As a result of the injury to his brain, the New Henry Turner loses the personality traits that had made the Old Henry such a formidable adversary.

Conventional models for Social Construction of Technology fail to take into account the prevailing influence of a new technological/social phenomenon-the modern business corporation. Corporate autonomy, power and influence, as exhibited especially since the mid-1970s, has made necessary the consideration of a new concept: the Technological Construction of Society, a novel form of technological determinism which pays due attention to the role of large, publicly-traded, professionally managed business corporations.

Professor Mitt Regan takes up Brad Wendel's suggestion that we have to distinguish the ethics of advocates from those which guide other forms of legal work, and proposes that the distinction be taken further. Legal advising can itself implicate different ethical positions. Regan concentrates on tax advisers, and argues that their work can, at times, legitimately require a partisan advocate's stance in the giving of tax advice or an impartial trustee's stance in ensuring that the spirit, as well as the (...) letter, of tax law is honoured. Especially in the US, there are strong systemic justifications for treating the tax adviser as an advocate: the wide latitude that tax law gives the citizen when calculating tax liability, the hazards of accurate interpretation of the tax code, and the need for predictability in client arrangements suggesting that it is preferable to concentrate strictly on the letter of the law. So too, the tax adviser as trustee is informed by the importance of tax collection for ordinary government services, and by 'tax morale' and the community's confidence in the tax system generally. The bifurcation of ethical stances in tax advising is, as a consequence, a function of the 'conflicted regulation' of citizen taxpayers. (shrink)

According to communitarian antiliberals, liberalism is fatally marred by a false metaphysics of the self. Liberalism, communitarians charge, regards the self as atomistic, isolated, presocial, ahistorical, “Cartesian,” Crusoeesque, essentially independent of other selves—in Michael Sandel's felicitous word, “unencumbered.” In reality, the self is constituted by relationships with others, hence by its contingent history. The self is fundamentally historical and social, and a true metaphysics of the self would, in the words of George Fletcher, take “relationships as logically prior to the (...) individual.” Sandel puts it thus: “Can we view ourselves as independent selves, independent in the sense that our identity is never attached to our aims and attachments? I do not think we can….”. (shrink)

Judith Shklar, David Runciman, and others argue against what they see as excessive criticism of political hypocrisy. Such arguments often assume that communicating in an authentic manner is an impossible political ideal. This article challenges the characterization of authenticity as an unrealistic ideal and makes the case that its value can be grounded in a certain political realism sensitive to the threats posed by representative democracy. First, by analyzing authenticity’s demands for political discourse, I show that authenticity has greater flexibility (...) than many assume in accommodating practices common to politics, such as deception, concealment, and persuasion through rhetoric. Second, I argue that a concern for authenticity in political discourse represents a virtue, not a distraction, for representative democracy. Authenticity takes on heightened importance when the public seeks information on how representatives will act in contexts where the public is absent and unable to influence decisions. Furthermore, given the psychological mechanisms behind hypocrisy, public criticism is a sensible response for trying to limit political hypocrisy. From the perspective of democratic theory and psychology, the public has compelling reasons to value authenticity in political discourse. (shrink)