Conclusion

The way in which the lawyer and client relationship is presented in codes of conduct suggests an underlying legal basis containing elements of agency, contract and trusts. These elements may exist in different proportions depending on the nature of clients and the nature of the problem.

The dominant principle of lawyers’ relations with clients has been characterised as loyalty, or in the terminology of US academics, partisanship. This construction was based on a reading of the ABA Model Code which emphasised a requirement of ‘zeal’ in pursuit of a client’s lawful wishes. The obligation to pursue a client’s lawful aims is a more explicit expression of what partisanship entails. This orientation is, arguably, more consistent with a consumerist society and the notion of client autonomy.

Current changes to the legal profession in England and Wales reflect a drive to replace the professional ethos of lawyers with a consumerist orientation. This will increase the premium placed on client wishes and client autonomy. The LSA 2007 and the new codes suggest an intention to balance this, by emphasising various overarch­ing, system-orientated duties; the rule of law, the administration of justice, the public interest. None of these provides a clear and satisfactory basis for constraining lawyers’ actions in clients’ interests.

A development that might mark a compromise between the professional and con­sumer ideologies is participatory decision-making by lawyers and clients. This model of the lawyer and client relationship provides scope for ethical debate with clients about their aims and wishes. Such discourse allows clients autonomy while enabling lawyers to influence aims and outcomes. This is potentially an ideal ethical stance for lawyers. It allows them to present their authentic personalities in their relationship with clients. Ultimately, however, whether lawyers are bound to carry out their clients’ lawful instructions is unclear. It seems likely that, in most situations, lawyers could refuse to follow clients’ instructions where they fundamentally disagree with a course of action.