II. Loyalty to Clients
The obligation of loyalty is often traced to the adversarial system. The argument is that adversarial justice protects client autonomy and dignity. Parties decide for themselves what they wish to claim and how they wish to support their claims and the lawyer facilitates that exercise of autonomy.
Lawyers ensure that the promise of client autonomy is realised by ensuring that clients’ cases are presented in the way that they would present them, if they had the legal skills. It on this basis that lawyers claim not to be accountable morally when acting for their client, even if they would not necessarily do the same thing for themselves.The balance between duties to clients and to the wider system varies considerably between countries as a result of various factors. The main differences between jurisdictions relate to conceptions of the judicial process and its purpose, to theories about justice and to ideologies relating to the role of the judge and the legal profession.3 Nevertheless, most systems qualify loyalty to clients in some way. There is usually an expectation that lawyers will not compromise justice, that is, justice in the shape of formal legality. What is meant by loyalty to clients, and the limits to that loyalty, is defined in detail within each system.
III.
More on the topic II. Loyalty to Clients:
- Brief History of Regulating Solicitors’ Conflicts of Interest
- Early History of Lawyers 1300-1700
- Revolutinary Challenges to Empire: Popular Sovereignty and Industrialisation
- We have all experienced strong emotions related to conflict.
- Potential Conflict of Interest Situations and the Codes
- The difference between integrity and dissonance reduction
- CHAPTER TWO Foreign Conquest and Shifting Identities New cults and old traditions
- Chapter 24 The Second Soviet Republic
- The Princes
- Enlightened despotism and parliamentary government