Category: Lawyer

Introduction

A. Orient your Reader to Time, Place, and Issue

Hollywood has long used the cinematic courtroom as a tool to make social and political statements or to manipulate public perception. The trial film genre has tried to explain the relationship between popular culture and law from the beginning of the film in 1895 to the present day. Does this paper seek to explore what kind of community legal popular culture creates? How do the law and film shape our expectations about what the law and the American justice system are about? Is there a method to fix the public’s perception of lawyers and the legal system?

B. State the Problem

With the increase of television shows and films depicting what happens within the legal system, people are observing a false sense of what occurs as a professional in the legal field. Those who work in this field believe that the public learns most of what it thinks it knows about the law, lawyers, and the legal system from the works of popular legal culture. They believe that information or misinformation gathered from popular culture has a significant impact on the law in the legal realist sense. Information such as what judges, jurors, attorneys, legislators, voters, and ordinary consumers or producers do in their contracting, fact-finding, law-applying, and law-making functions. They are convinced that popular culture represents actual popular attitudes and beliefs about the institutions and characters that it describes.

C. State the Thesis:

Because of the general public’s inexperience with the legal system and law in general, susceptible and inaccurate films and television shows can give the public a false sense of understanding of what lawyers do and how the judicial system works.

D. Lay Out the Organization of your paper:

This paper will look at the relationship between film and television and the law. It will look at Hollywood’s portrayals of lawyers and their influence on how people think about and view the legal profession. It will look at how television and film have shaped the expectations of our legal system and compare them to the realities of legal practice. Finally, it will look at the impact television and film have on potential and current law students in order to discover methods to fix the public’s perception of lawyers and the legal system.

I. First body section

Introduction to the section

The Modern Depictions of Lawyers and the Legal System from the Average Viewer’s Perspective

The legal system has been portrayed in films since the medium’s beginning. It was the “golden age of legal films in the 1950s and 1960s that created the bulk of that era’s perceptions of the law. Previous generations grew up watching Ben Matlock and Perry Mason, very expensive criminal defense attorneys, who charged hundreds of thousands of dollars to take on a new, difficult case every episode. Most of today’s real-life litigants are probably surprised to find that their lawyers are not private investigators, trials are buried in technical formalities, witnesses appear by deposition, and few of the players, including judges, lawyers, witnesses, and the parties, make beautiful speeches or witty remarks.

Numerous articles have been written concerning the portrayal of law, courts, trials, judges, attorneys, and even parties in popular culture. The law has provided plenty of material for both the large and small screen, particularly on television and film. It is important to note that most television and film depictions focus on litigation attorneys and trials. These portrayals are not surprising considering litigation and trial work have greater dramatic potential than the drafting of wills or the closing of real estate transactions. And, trials grip the television audience because they are the civilized equivalent of conflict. Trials are more exciting than anything else a lawyer does and they provide the easiest means to support a narrative.

A. Point

Judges

Popular culture tends to create stock images, and characters with which we become familiar. In popular venues, the ‘judge’ is generally depicted either as a neutral or invisible placeholder for a fixed and determinate rule of law (which we might call the cultural ‘good judge’), or as biased, vulgar, or downright villainous (the cultural ‘bad judge’). In the popular conception, the judge as the creator of rules is nowhere to be found. This phenomenon, that judges as legitimate lawmakers are foreign to pop cultural portrayals of judging, should at one level strike us as puzzling. The idea of the judge-as-lawmaker has been with us for centuries, even if current popular cultural portrayals do not acknowledge that.

Despite this history, contemporary depictions of judging obscure judicial rulemaking, what should we make of the failure of popular culture to address this fundamental judicial role? The conventional nature of the well-crafted judicial opinion seeks to achieve a tone of predictability, suggesting that the judge has no choice in making the decision. The goal is to appear neutral, an influencer without politics. The prevailing belief of judges and judging that currently dominates the cultural discourse is simply systematic. It not only claims priority over other possible images of the judicial role but because it is invisible it seems both predictable and not subject to review.

B. Point

Lawyers

Almost all film and television trials are set in a beautiful old mahogany-paneled courthouse with the judge sitting high on a platform above the proceedings. The cinematic courtroom resembles exactly what it is: a stage on which to tell a story. The puzzle is this: if the American public distrusts lawyers more than all professionals and holds judges in higher esteem, then why do Americans believe strongly in the adversarial system, where lawyers make all the important procedural decisions during trials? Possible reasons for this paradox are the influence of popular culture portrayals of the trial process. This reason is rooted in the ‘cultivation theory,’ which proposes that people often form opinions based on the fictitious stories of pop culture media.

The popular television show Perry Mason greatly influenced how the public looks at lawyers. Perry Mason taught media consumers that the adversary system delivers the truth. Even though Americans hate and distrust lawyers, they want a good one by their side. Countless films and television shows since Perry Mason’s day have conveyed the same basic message, solidifying Americans’ bone-deep belief in the adversary system.

C. Point

Visual Knowledge

Cinematic characters are usually divided into specific stereotypical roles. Judges, jurors, and witnesses all play one-dimensional bit parts unless the plot revolves around that particular individual. Often, the viewer is placed in the role of the jury to ‘sort out the plot. The attorneys, on the other hand, are cast as the heroes and villains of the shows. Focusing attention on language, images, and communications, lawyers need to understand the fluidity between law and popular culture. The two are related; law bleeds into popular culture, and the feedback loop ensures that culture deeply influences the meaning and discourses of law.

Visual learning is indirect. When we see images, our brains work with connections rather than in logical ways. More than written or oral communications, visual images call for emotional responses. Lawyers need to understand better how technologies of the internet, film, and television are changing how people learn. This effect is clear in persuasion techniques by practicing attorneys, who borrow from well-known film or television conceits in both their style and visual demonstrations. It is also present in the minds of jurors; whose decision-making suggests influenced by memes from popular culture (and the attorneys that exploit them). Acknowledging this influence is important to effectively confront any knowledge gaps or distortions it may cause.

Conclusion to the section

Mass media produces images of judges and attorneys engaged in the most dynamic and conflicted of situations because these portrayals generate the largest audience. These stereotypes, however, have very little to do with the reality of the legal process. Real cases rarely go to trial, criminal defendants are almost always convicted or accept a plea bargain, witnesses rarely break down on the stand, and courtrooms are run by the judges, not the litigants. This is important because this departure from reality is critical to the success of lawyer indoctrination. Courtroom drama remains popular in films and on television because Americans are fascinated by what lawyers do, or at least by what dramatic indoctrination generally has portrayed them doing.

II. Second body section

The Realities of Legal Practice

The daily life of the average trial lawyer is quite dull. Trial lawyers spend most of their time in the discovery stage of the litigation, reviewing pleadings, drafting and answering discovery requests, and taking depositions. While there are parts of being a lawyer that can involve some of the glamorous aspects highlighted in television and film, there is also a great deal of detail-oriented and much less interesting work and also potentially significant adverse impact on your personal life.

Legal series is based on conflict and therefore make good stories. They encourage active viewership because each side of the dispute gets equal time, or nearly, to present its generally reasonable arguments. This is a realistic representation of the law because courts deal with conflict and each party usually thinks it has a legitimate cause to defend. The conflicts at the heart of the stories are pertinent because they reflect the current concerns of television viewers: stories of crime, betrayal, fraud, corruption, terrorism, personal injury, and eternal family trouble.

A. Point

You, Will, Be a Great Lawyer Because You Are Good at Arguing

Courtroom scenes are constructed on well-written opposing arguments. Viewers are doubly implicated at these moments: evaluating the arguments while waiting for the jury’s decision in favor of one of the two parties. If a viewer has never had direct experience with legal conflict, or even indirect for that matter, the shows give him a notion of the role of law and justice in the lives of ordinary citizens. Although litigation is an adversarial process, legal advocacy is not about “arguing” in the sense of engaging in a verbal battle with your opponent. Instead, it is about persuading your audience, whether that be a judge, mediator, or jury, through a logical, well-researched, well-reasoned discussion based on the facts and the law. Thus, to succeed as a litigator, a track record of “winning arguments” is not as important as top-notch oral advocacy and writing skills. Unlike the lawyers portrayed on television shows, much of the work of trial attorneys occurs outside the courtroom. In fact, less than one percent of all civil cases proceed to trial. Many cases are settled out of court or through alternative methods of dispute resolution.

The work of a trial lawyer is also very research and writing-intensive as much of their work involves drafting briefs, memorandums of law, and motions. Litigators spend many long hours engaged in tedious document review, gathering thousands of documents to be produced in litigation and reviewing each document to determine if it must be turned over to the other parties. While law practice can be intellectually rigorous, much of the lawyer’s work is mundane and repetitive. New lawyers, especially those in large firms, are often charged with the mind-numbing tasks of document review, cite-checking, and routine research. Law firm lawyers must track their time in six to fifteen-minute increments throughout the day, a painstaking but necessary task.

B. Point

Becoming a Lawyer Is a Guaranteed Path to Financial Success

One of the reasonably accurate depictions of a positive aspect of being an attorney is the high pay and the fancy perks surrounding a movie or showing the main character. The top law firms have annual profits per partner of $3.5 million and 5 million, respectively. That kind of money certainly allows partners to easily afford the lifestyles that are portrayed in movies and shows. Even as big law firm associates, you often get access to tickets to fancy events from the firm or individual partners, and you will eat at quite a few fine dining establishments for firm events, such as retreats, or recruiting meals. The salaries are also quite significant, with the big law firm market salary starting at $160,000 per year for first-year associates, fresh law graduates frequently with no professional experience, and rising steadily over the years.

The truth is, the most highly compensated attorneys are employed in the world’s mega-firms, firms with over 101 attorneys, and such firms represent only one percent of all law firms according to the American Bar Foundation’s Lawyer Statistical Report. Furthermore, most mega-firms are extremely selective in their hiring process, choosing only the top students from the most prestigious law schools. Most lawyers work in lower-paying venues such as small firms, public interest, or the government. According to the National Association for Law Placement, 83 percent of all lawyers who work in private practice are employed in firms of fewer than 50 lawyers. Large law firm lawyers report the least career satisfaction according to a recent survey by the American Bar Association. Billable hour quotas at many large firms require lawyers to work 60-80 hours per week. When you divide your hours worked into your monthly salary, that big-firm paycheck may not look so generous. Attorneys employed in the public sector, which ranks among the lowest paying practice environments, reported the most career satisfaction.

C. Point

Lawyers Can Eradicate Injustice and Affect Societal Change

While you can make a positive impact as a lawyer, litigation has little to do with overcoming injustice and everything to do with advocating your client’s position based on the facts and applicable law. Judicial decisions are not so much about the pursuit of justice or right versus wrong as about reaching a compromise between all the parties. At its best, a movie or a show can take the notion of justice and injustice and remind us that law, in the final analysis, is a human enterprise and that there is a human cost behind both our failures and our successes. Films can return us to instances that have tested the law and tested it in the most human of terms.

The judicial policy also affects many case decisions. In an American Bar Association survey, two out of every three lawyers surveyed reported concern that the court system they serve is becoming too political. Saying that some lawyers can or should help promote democratic values is a far cry from films and shows concluding that there is something inherent in being a lawyer that requires all lawyers to engage in those functions. The survey also suggested, that when given a choice regarding public interest law, some lawyers will pursue the light and others will flee to the dark side. How actively and in which direction a lawyer may pursue depends on personal political preferences, political trends, and financial realities.

Conclusion to the section

Television and film lack an accurate portrayal of what lawyers do daily. While most lawyers on television or in movies play the typical hero, villain, or bit player, these actors are nearly uniformly portrayed in dynamic roles that involve investigating cases, strategizing, meeting with clients, and appearing in court. Rarely is an attorney saw toiling away at her desk researching the law, reviewing documents, drafting discovery requests or pleadings, or simply reviewing the case. For example, lawyers on television frequently have bookcases filled with legal books, but they have rarely read cases, check citations, or drafted memos. Such activities would provide little opportunity for plot development or dramatic license, and the true goal of television is to entertain, not to educate the general public about the practice of law. Yet, those activities comprise the daily life of most real lawyers.

III. Third body section

Law Student Perceptions of Lawyering

Many students interested in the legal profession simply do not know what lawyers do or what they represent to American society. Regardless of how they are perceived, it is difficult to dispute that lawyers can be a positive good for society because they are public servants who make enduring contributions to the law’s development and they advance community and client interests. With their specialized understanding of the law and its impact, lawyers remain at the forefront of making important legal and political changes to American society. Envisioning lawyers as virtuous and impartial advocates of truth and justice is infused into some American popular culture. The stories that surround fictional and nonfictional lawyer heroes like Atticus Finch, Perry Mason, and Matlock reinforce the impression that attorneys selflessly represent idealistic notions of equality, fairness, and justice.

A. Point

Effect of Lawyering Exposure on First-Year Law Students’ Perceptions

Popular renditions of lawyers portray them as always discovering the truth and achieving justice through courtroom trials in perpetually interesting and controversial cases. In part, the perception flows from the traditional image of a lawyer’s professional identity. The homespun image is inspired by Harper Lee’s portrayal of model country lawyer Atticus Finch in her famous To Kill a Mockingbird. This classic depiction of an attorney, which commands respect and community veneration, consummate professionals who are selfless, community-oriented, and fierce advocates not only of the rule of law but also of clients’ interests. Undeterred by popular passions and causes, Atticus Finch-type lawyers exercise the independent judgment that makes them especially qualified to perform their lawyer role with dignity and honor, a trait that makes them an attractive resource to handle difficult problems or cases in times of legal trouble.

Beyond their public image, the myth that attorneys primarily engage in trial work ignores the fact that most lawyers rarely step inside a courtroom and, if they do, almost all the cases are settled well before a jury has the chance to deliberate on a verdict. The common public perceptions surrounding trial work and all it entails are simply inaccurate on a variety of levels. While most lawyers are engaged in private practice, there is little empirical evidence to show that lawyers litigate too much or abuse their responsibilities in resolving disputes. In fact, studies have indicated that there are many psychological, financial, and time management disincentives for litigants to sue and that most of the grievances by citizens have rarely become full-blown legal disputes that require formal action by lawyers or the legal system.

B. Point

First-year Law Students in Television Shows and Movies

Before law school, many first years are encouraged to watch movies and television shows based on the legal profession, like Legally Blonde, The Paper Chase, Boston Legal, and Law and Order. While entertaining, these shows and movies have helped Hollywood perpetuate several stereotypes of law school. Well into their first year of law school, friends and family still regularly make comparisons between what law students are actually going through and what Hollywood has shown them law students should be. Students are gently reminded that law school is my reality and not a Hollywood production.

It is understandable that an hour-long drama about studying in the library would not do well in the ratings. Whether it is the notion that you can get a 180 on the LSAT and get admitted to Harvard Law School merely by studying for a few months or that you will be a good lawyer based solely on how well you perform in public speaking or how well-dressed you are in court, it could be frustrating to watch these shows and see such a misrepresentation of how hard law students and lawyers work. Film and television directors should please keep in mind that perhaps the most dramatic part of their product is how vastly it underestimates the real-life workload of law students and lawyers.

C. Point

Law Students’ Perceptions Compared to Reality

Matlock is a legal drama starring Andy Griffith as the titular character, a cantankerous criminal defense attorney based in Georgia. Ben Matlock had a killer Southern accent, an impeccable fashion sense, and a court demeanor that teetered on the brink of outright hostility. Fast forward twenty years or so and the cable courtroom drama has become a staple in most of our lives. In the 90s and early 2000s, it was Law & Order, Boston Legal, The Practice, and Ally McBeal. More recently, it’s been Franklin & Bash, Damages, The Good Wife, Law & Order, and How to Get Away With Murder. Simply put, nothing on television bears even the remotest relationship to the actual practice of law in any way, shape, or form.

With only a few exceptions, legal dramas credit success or failure in the legal profession to the personal qualities of the lawyers in question. Ben Matlock wins cases because he has an eerie ability to tell when his clients are lying to him. Annalise Keating of How to Get Away With Murder wins cases because she breaks, quite literally, every single ethical rule that binds lawyers and inexplicably never gets caught doing so. Alicia Florrick of The Good Wife wins cases because of her steely demeanor and the fact that she is calm under pressure. What legal dramas don’t ever talk about the amount of super boring, incredibly tedious, and very hard work that goes into preparing for trials? I’m not a lawyer yet, so I can’t fully speak to how insulting it must be to see your profession represented as being based wholly on how manipulative individual lawyers can be. As a law student, I can speak to how annoying it is to watch the main characters of these shows learn the exact opposite of all the things you need to learn in law school.

Conclusion to the section

Although most college movies have at least some truth to them, students should remember that Hollywood’s goal is to make money, so even if a movie is based on a true story, the writers and directors often make creative changes to make the movie more appealing. Law school is a lot of things. Let Hollywood inspire you. Let reality guide you. Ultimately, like the rest of your life, it will be what you make of it.

Conclusion: a mirror image of the introduction

Hollywood has long used the cinematic courtroom as a tool to make social and political statements or to manipulate public perception. The trial film genre has tried to explain the relationship between popular culture and law from the beginning of the film in 1895 to the present day. This paper sought to explore what kind of community does legal popular culture create? How do the law and film shape our expectations about what the law and the American justice system are about? Is there a method to fix the public’s perception of lawyers and the legal system?

With the increase of television shows and films depicting what happens within the legal system, people are observing a false sense of what occurs as a professional in the legal field. Those who work in this field believe that the public learns most of what it thinks it knows about the law, lawyers, and the legal system from the works of popular legal culture. They believe that information or misinformation gathered from popular culture has a significant impact on the law in the legal realist sense. Information such as what judges, jurors, attorneys, legislators, voters, and ordinary consumers or producers do in their contracting, fact-finding, law-applying, and law-making functions. They are convinced that popular culture represents actual popular attitudes and beliefs about the institutions and characters that it describes.

Because of the general public’s inexperience with the legal system and law in general, susceptible and inaccurate films and television shows can give the public a false sense of understanding of what lawyers do and how the judicial system works.

This paper will look at the relationship between film and television and the law. It will look at Hollywood’s portrayals of lawyers and their influence on how people think about and view the legal profession. It will look at how television and film have shaped the expectations of our legal system and compare them to the realities of legal practice. Finally, it will look at the impact television and film have on potential and current law students in order to discover methods to fix the public’s perception of lawyers and the legal system.

The gap between the portrayals and perception exists. The gap between the real legal process and how the law is generally portrayed in film and on television is quite wide, at least as it pertains to lawyering activities. Prime-time lawyers are depicted as engaging in dynamic-lawyering activities and rarely practice paper lawyering. In contrast, practicing attorneys agree that lawyers spend considerable time engaging in the latter. Clearly, there is a divide between popular culture and reality on this issue.

First-year law students have a relatively accurate view of lawyering activities despite viewing erroneous depictions on television. Under the legal-realist view, because society gains many of its perceptions about the law from television and film, these portrayals of the law may result in a viewer’s misunderstanding of attorneys’ activities. Accordingly, there was an expectation that law students’ perceptions would more closely resemble popular culture portrayals because, theoretically, popular culture was the only source of information they had, however, that was proven otherwise. Law students’ perceptions more closely resembled reality than popular culture portrayals. Accordingly, we believe that people generally understand that what they see on television is just that-TV.

Although directors and producers already hire and work according to legal advice, because so much of the public is interested in and due to the legal system’s influence, they should depict a more natural, honest depiction of what occurs in the legal field.

As Abraham Lincoln once stated, ‘if in your own judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer. This statement suggests questions of morality have long been at the heart of the legal profession. The relationship between the client and the lawyer, at the expense of the lawyer’s morality, is often considered a primary concern of the profession, following its rise to popularity under the standard conception during the 20th century. As Rodell argues, lawyers act selfishly – prioritizing their own interests over their broader obligations. Since then, the SRA Codes of Conduct and Legal Services Act 2007 (‘LSA’) have outlined a lawyer with responsibility, under their professional obligations, to the ‘wider’ public. This essay will begin by addressing the core provisions of the LSA and SRA Standards and Regulations in their attempts to guide a lawyer’s professional conduct. It will then explore the standard conception, before narrowing in on the moral dilemma of acting for your client or for the public good. This ethical predicament can be examined through various examples, including tax avoidance schemes, money laundering, and pro-bono work. However, this essay will be limited to an examination of the issues surrounding non-disclosure agreements (‘NDAs’), notably those associated with Harvey Weinstein.

The LSA made numerous changes to the legal sector. One particular change has meant legal professionals must now be regulated by an independent regulator, such as the SRA. The LSA aimed to generate greater public confidence in lawyers and ensure lawyers abide by the rule book; for solicitors, this means the SRA Standards and Regulations, which contains the SRA Principles and Codes of Conduct for Solicitors. The SRA Standards and Regulations encompass what is expected of solicitors, for the benefit of clients and the wider public. Since the LSA, the SRA Codes have moved away from rules-based regulations toward outcome-based regulations, which now encourage lawyers to consider the consequences of their actions when determining whether it is ethically appropriate. This can be largely problematic as it leaves many decisions open to an individual’s discretion. The seven, essential Principles, encompassing ‘the fundamental tenets of ethical behavior’, highlight the numerous ethical obligations owed by lawyers. These obligations owed to the court, client, and general public can often compete, placing priorities under strain and resulting in lawyers acting in immoral and unjust ways. In the context of NDAs, the balancing act of duties to the client and duties to the public, namely in ensuring the administration of justice, and upholding the public trust, clearly creates an ethical dilemma for lawyers. With many regarding solicitors as the ‘gatekeepers of NDAs’, and with the code of conduct remaining ‘hopelessly silent on the problems of commercial practice’, the ethical dilemmas of NDAs appear to fall squarely on the head of the individual.

The ethical dilemmas faced by legal professionals depend on your interpretation of the legal role. Boon suggests that debates around legal immorality should be viewed through the standard conception, where the actions of lawyers are based on three principles. Under the first pillar, partisanship, lawyers seek to protect or advance their client’s interests. This is based on the American Bar Association Model, whereby attorneys are required to act ‘zealously’ in order to do everything possible to advance their client’s rights unless clearly prohibited by law. The level of commitment to a client ranges from ‘hyper-zeal’ and ‘fearlessly advocacy’, to ‘mere zeal’ where a lawyer does not have to pursue every possible tactic. The second principle is neutrality, whereby a lawyer will ignore their own personal moral view of their client’s position and act impartially, thus allowing the client to pursue their own objectives. In observing these principles, lawyers are absolved of personal moral responsibility for the consequences of their actions (‘non-accountability). Therefore, in zealously defending, ignoring morality, and bearing no consequential responsibility for their client’s actions, the ethics of lawyers are easily problematized.

The focus on the standard conception has acted to justify the alignment of lawyer-client interests. The pressure consequently faced by corporate lawyers to do their client’s bidding inevitably strains their professional commitment to the rule of law and emphasizes the ‘anaesthetization of moral conscience’, endorsed by the standard conception. Within the context of NDAs, solicitors can draft legal clauses to cover up harmful activities in their zealous pursuit of client interests and can, simultaneously, refute any accountability for their actions. Wendel argues that many commentators prioritize a lawyer’s fidelity to their client to the exclusion of other responsibilities, such as to wider society and the justice system. Just as a client needs to trust their lawyer, society needs to trust the legal profession to abide by the law and not avoid or breach regulations. Lawyers acting in accordance with the standard conception have been critiqued as allowing attacks on the public good, notably when powerful individuals use firms to silence reports of sexual assault. It is argued the standard conception encourages dishonesty and fails to recognize the importance of promoting societal good, as emphasized by the first three SRA Principles which refer to duties to the broader good as opposed to the client. In contrast, Shaffer and Cochran adopt a strongly moralistic view of the legal profession, understanding it as one where clients are seen as collaborators in producing good, with the client and lawyer helping each other to become better people. Therefore, the lack of unity between accounts of lawyers’ duties accentuates the complicated nature of a lawyer’s relationship with their client and also the wider public.

According to Wendel, it is vital to ensure lawyers owe a duty to the general public as well as to their clients. However, the SRA Principles lack guidance as to their application and context. In particular, neither the SRA nor LSA specifically defines ‘public interest, rather guidance remains ‘ambiguous’ and the image of the corporate lawyer facilitating public concerns whilst acting zealously for their client is missing. Solicitors are expected to act with ‘complete integrity, probity, and trustworthiness’ (Bolton v Law Society) across the board, yet the corporate legal environment, competitive and incentivized by achieving high revenue, increasingly acts to reduce a lawyer’s capacity to act independently.

The question is therefore to what extent should a corporate lawyer protect their client’s interest before it becomes detrimental to the wider public interest?

NDAs are commonly used to protect businesses’ commercial knowledge, such as proprietary information and trade secrets, or prevent reputational damage. Drafting the agreement of a legal NDA does not generate an ethical dilemma – you are pursuing your duty to the client (Principle 7), but not to the exclusion of your other obligations. Furthermore, ensuring confidentiality with regards to the protection of businesses and individuals alike is crucial to the standard of professionalism expected by the SRA, as highlighted by O(6.3) ‘you keep the affairs of current and former clients confidential unless disclosure is required or permitted by law or the client consents. Additionally, NDAs are argued to promote the rule of law through their facilitation of settlement agreements and enforceable contracts, both of which are within the public interest. However, there is a ‘darker side’ to NDAs, where an agreement is drafted contrary to the legal ethical principles upholding the rule of law and administration of justice. NDAs can enable ‘cloaks of secrecy to be thrown over serious misconduct, leaving individuals in difficult circumstances.

The disgrace of Harvey Weinstein and the #MeToo movement has thrown NDAs into the spotlight, with many individuals asserting NDAs are used to stop victims from reporting genuine sexual misconduct. NDAs in sexual misconduct investigations can prevent the public from learning about misconduct and individuals from acquiring proof necessary to their cases, whilst simultaneously impairing criminal investigations and the enforcement of statutory rights. This stands in direct contrast with Principe 2 to ‘uphold public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession’ and the SRA Outlook 20192020 which highlights the importance of acting with integrity as ‘more than not being dishonest’. Investigative reports revealed Harvey Weinstein had abused his position of power for decades, sexually assaulting and harassing numerous women. Zelda Perkins, Mr. Weinstein’s former executive assistant, originally planned to take legal action against Mr. Weinstein and Miramax Films, but was left with ‘no other option than to enter into an agreement … accepting a financial damages settlement and … non-disclosure agreement’. The agreement left Ms. Perkins believing she would face incarceration if she were to break the NDA and left with her a loss of faith in the legal system. It is obvious here that the structure of the Weinstein-Perkins NDA regarded Mr. Weinstein’s interests as a priority over public duty, contrary to Section 1 of the LSA 2007 which emphasizes protecting and promoting the public interest. It appears that a lawyer’s ‘unbalanced’ actions could be justifiable from the perspective of the standard conception, for example, Allen

What does it mean to be an honest lawyer? To unravel this, is to come a step closer to understanding the role lawyers’ play. Most people possess some degree of personal ethics by which they live, some others refer to a moral compass but laws and rules guide both groups. They can be easy to conflate so the ability to differentiate between them is important, because they can and often times, conflict with one another. As Wasserstrom phrased it: “For most lawyers, most of the time, pursuing the interests of one’s clients is an attractive and satisfying way to live in part just because the moral world of the lawyer is a simpler, less complicated, and less ambiguous world than the moral world of ordinary life’.

The 1974 Wasserstrom solicitor – client commentary is approached from two perspectives in the following critical discussion. The first is a brief assessment of the Wasserstrom article in which his ‘amoral technician’ claim is advanced. It is suggested that the United States’ post-Watergate era exerts an intriguing influence over how Wasserstrom perceives legal professional ethics.

The second perspective specifically compares the concepts Wasserstrom associates with ethical lawyer conduct, with the current England and Wales (EW) Solicitor Regulation Authority (SRA) Code of Conduct (‘Code’). Particular attention is directed at the Code principles. The various discussion points developed in this respect confirm that Wasserstrom’s solicitor – client relationship characterisation is largely, if not perfectly aligned with the SRA Code ethics framework. Given the US and EW comparisons discussed here, the terms ‘solicitor’ and ‘lawyer’ are used interchangeably.

Wasserstrom – US legal ethics circa 1974

In examining how Wasserstrom explains the nature and scope of a lawyer’s professional duty owed to every client, it is instructive to consider the context in which Wasserstrom is writing. He makes numerous references to the then-recent Watergate scandal, in which US President Richard Nixon was forced to resign. At its essence, Watergate involved a criminal conspiracy to ‘cover up’ illegal activity Nixon’s Republican party directed in the 1972 presidential election campaign.

The Watergate scandal prompted significant legal profession and broader public criticism of lawyers, and the apparent legal ethics violations that had occurred. Ariens (and numerous American legal scholars), emphasises that a broad consensus opinion exists amongst American lawyers that ‘ideals of legal professionalism’ largely dissolved during the 1970s, spearheaded by the Watergate events.

Wasserstrom makes an astute observation regarding the many lawyers implicated as Watergate co-conspirators: their professional training made it easier for them to potentially justify the dubious ethics associated with their actions as ones furthering their client’s interests. The fact that lawyers were such prominent players in the Watergate events gives legal ethics, and Wasserstrom’s ‘amoral technician’ definition particular resonance.

Wasserstrom takes this law-morality relationship to its arguably ultimate conclusion later in his 1974 commentary. He notes that no legal ethics violation is committed when lawyers choose to represent clients ‘whose aims and purposes are quite immoral’ (such as the client that will manufacture and sell a harmful, but not illegal product such as cigarettes). Once the lawyer has agreed to act, they must provide the client with ‘the best possible assistance, without regard to his or her disapproval of the objective that is sought’. As the following SRA Code discussion points confirm, Wasserstrom accurately captured the essence of a lawyer’s professional obligations, and how lawyers must comply with their overarching duty to advance their client’s best interests.

SRA Code

The Code and its 10 Principles advance the overarching legal professional conduct objectives defined by the Legal Services Act 2007. The Principles remain the fundamental core that every solicitor should work to every day and should have at the forefront of their mind. The Act promotes ‘outcomes focused’ England and Wales (EW) solicitors’ regulation (OFR, authorisation, supervision, and enforcement), where primary importance is attached to promoting ‘high-level outcomes governing practice and quality of outcomes for clients’. This OFR orientation reflects the SRA efforts to transform its role, by moving away from the previous ‘tick box’ regulatory regime, to the current model whereby solicitors’ accountability is based ‘on achieving specified outcomes, and also on having demonstrably effective processes to prove that you have done so’. The SRA had concluded that the former ‘tick box’ approach did not appropriately encourage a culture of accountability and responsibility amongst its members.

The underlying philosophy the Act and Code collectively reflect an ethos whereby client and the general public interests are highlighted. It is suggested that from a traditional legal ethics perspective, the 10 Code principles are not controversial. For generations, the legal profession has accepted that at all times, its members must act with integrity, not permit their independence to be compromised, and act in the best interests of each client. It is suggested that these traditional ethical obligations are so engrained in the ethical frameworks; they also shape the public expectation that lawyers are professionals devoted to their client’s interests.

‘Zealous’, is the adjective often employed to describe the high level of commitment to the clients’ interests that every lawyer must demonstrate. Wasserstrom described the disgraced Watergate lawyers in identical terms: professionals that regarded themselves as having ‘zealously’ represented Nixon and his presidency. From a literal meaning perspective, ‘zealous’ conveys an impression that a lawyer can say or do almost anything short of committing a crime, and remain within the defined legal ethical boundaries. In other words, zealous advocacy might heighten the risk that brash, perhaps ill-considered client representation remains ethical.

This observation aside, there is no doubt that the most important ethical limitation placed on how a lawyer may permissibly advance their client’s interests is SRA Code Principle 1: ‘uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice’. Belhoff rephrases this Principle in the following attractive terms, in his assessment of a barrister’s duty owed to the Court. Belhoff asserts that no matter how zealously a barrister may advocate on their client’s behalf, all counsel owe their ‘paramount allegiance’ truth and justice, a ‘higher cause’ than any other lawyer – client obligation.

When reduced to language consistent with SRA Code objectives, Principle 1 is a mandatory, non-derogable duty. No legal professional can mislead the Court, its administrative branches, or an opposing party by intentionally acting (or falling to act) in ways that undermine proper justice administration.

In many respects, the EW cases that have considered SRA Code violations are entirely predictable. For example, in Vay Sui v SRA the Divisional Court upheld a Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal decision to strike off a solicitor who deliberately engaged in conduct that compromised Upper Tribunal immigration proceedings.

The solicitor had discovered a ‘loop hole’ in the relevant Upper Tribunal procedures, where he would file emergency injunction applications to prevent his client’s pending deportation. The Court had little difficulty in finding a patent Code Principle 1 violation (along with other ethical breaches, such as failing to act in ways that promote public trust). The Court found that the solicitor’s ‘spurious or merely hopeless’ Upper Tribunal applications added to the justice system administration burdens, and increased the costs of government. As importantly, the Court noted that the solicitor had actually compromised his clients’ costs, combined with ‘engendering prolonged and unjustified expectations’ of success in avoiding deportation.

Commentary

Vay Sui v SRA is the quintessential ‘easy case’. It is the more nuanced, circumstance-driven interpretation and application of these Principles that presents greater solicitor regulation challenges. Wasserstrom’s ‘amoral technician’, and his related commentary commands even greater importance in this respect. ‘Moral worth’, as Wasserstrom employs this expression, is a particularly effective way to explain why solicitors must compartmentalise commitment to their Code obligations, and the diligence with which they must discharge these obligations, from any personal feelings they may have regarding their client, or the client’s cause.

One can readily imagine the problems that would result for individual clients, the legal profession, and the broader public interest if the following rules applied to EW solicitors. If solicitors were obliged to reject any opportunity where they would be representing, or advising clients who were involved in morally dubious activities or enterprises, solicitors would become the de facto legal system gatekeepers. A solicitor’s subjective moral views would be determinative of whether a private citizen could obtain professional legal advice. There is no doubt that as an ethical proposition, a solicitor can decline to act in circumstances where the solicitor determines that in good conscience, the solicitor will not be able to best advance their client’s best interests because the solicitor questions their client’s morality. This decision accords with Wasserman’s ‘amoral technician’, and Code requirements regarding client service standards.

In essence, such a circumstance would mean lawyers would only accept retainers where they liked the client, or their cause. By ensuring that lawyers can proceed without any professional qualms regarding ethical compliance, where the client or their cause is unpopular or controversial, public faith in the law and its institutions is correspondingly enhanced. The public will understand that by encouraging lawyers to represent their clients’ interests as vigorously and fearlessly as the law permits, the SRA ethical framework actually protects lawyers and the public. No one will be denied the opportunity to seek or obtain legal advice because the SRA ethical rules do not permit solicitors to arbitrarily decide whether a prospective client will be assisted.

Conclusions

The discussion points developed above support the following conclusions. Wasserstrom provided a masterful analysis of legal ethics, and the implications for lawyers and the public alike, in his 1974 commentary.

As the various comparisons made between Wasserstrom’s ‘amoral technician’ lawyer conception, and the SRA Code ethical requirements imposed on all EW solicitors clearly confirm, the current SRA approach advances the public interest. Solicitors are expected to separate their personal feelings regarding a particular client, or the client’s cause, to ensure that the client is properly advised and represented to the fullest possible extent allowed by law. Absent these crucial SRA Code ethics standards, and their implicit ‘amoral technician’ endorsement, the public might be denied vital legal services.

Bibliography

1. Vay Sui IP v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2018] EWHC 957 (Admin).
2. Legal Services Act 2007.
3. Ariens, M ‘The Agony of Modern Legal Ethics, 1970-1985’ (2014) 5 St. Mary’s J. Legal Mal. & Ethics 134.
4. Belhoff, M ‘’A view from the bar’: The tenth Sir David Williams lecture (TFV), Law Faculty, Cambridge University on 21st May 2010’ (2011) Denning L.J. 1.
5. Clark, K ‘The Legacy of Watergate for Legal Ethics Instruction’ (2000) 51(673) Hastings LJ 678.
6. Wasserstrom, R ‘Lawyers as professionals: Some moral issues’ (1975) 5(1) Human Rights 1.
7. West, R ‘The Zealous Advocacy of Justice in a Less Than Ideal Legal World’ (1999) 51 Stan. L. Rev. 973.
8. Law Society, ‘Outcomes-focused regulation’ (2017) [Online] Available: [16 May 2018].
9. MacMillan, B ‘Outcomes Focused Regulation: A Guide for In-house Lawyers’ (2016) LexisNexis [Online] Available: [16 May 2018].
10. Solicitor Regulation Authority (SRA) Code of Conduct 2011 (revised 1 November 2015) [Online] Available: [16 May 2018].

Mahatma Gandhi was born on 2 October 1869 in Porbandar, India. His full name was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi was an Indian lawyer and activist who used non-violent protests such as hunger strikes and civil disobedience in order to separate India from the United Kingdom. When Gandhi was alive, Britain occupied India as British Raj, and the treatment towards the Indians – especially the poorer ones – was very rude and racist. During the eighteen sixties – Mahamat’s birth decade – the American Civil war was happening. This may have sparked the start of the recognition that India could revolt and become its own nation. Continuing on from that, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, which again, may give citizens ideas of revolution and protest. The 1860s was also a very evolving era, with skiing being invented, the Suez Canal opening, and the world-superpower, Austria-Hungary, being formed. During that time period, the prime minister of the U.K was William Ewart Gladstone. Did you know, that Gladstone was the fifth longest-serving Prime Minister in the U.K ever! 12 years and 126 days. William was very opinionated towards the Indians when he declared: “I am one of those who think that to the actual, as distinguished from the reported, strength of the empire, India adds nothing”.

Mahamat was mainly associated with India, or British Raj as I mentioned above. It was his birth and death place and he may be the most associated with the uprising of India from the U.K. Although it may not be known when he was first realized by governments, his first obvious revolutionary act was when he was working as a lawyer in South Africa, in 1893. He withheld to comply with racial separation rules on a train and was ejected at Pietermaritzburg.

The reason I chose Gandhi is that he is such a role model to me, as he rose even in a time of such corruption and despair for the Indians, in racism and prejudice. He also did this in such a way where no one got hurt, because he used nonviolent protests, kind of like the silent protests that Greta Thunberg did. Therefore, he was widely acknowledged as the founder of the modern nonviolent protest. Martin Luther King took great inspiration from this and led America to his non-racist dream. Gandhi is also a great inspiration to not just me, but so many others. Without him, many Indian sporting greats such as Milkha Singh and Sachin Tendulkar, would not be alive today. Gandhi’s life taught me that you can have political change without war or death. Although his life was cut short by Nathuram Godse, he will never stop affecting others.

What is stress? Everyone has a different way they define stress. The dictionary definition of stress is a state of mental or emotional strain or tension resulting from adverse or demanding circumstances. A person is very unlikely to find a job where you won’t have stress. Everyone experiences stress in different ways. Whether it is just from being overwhelmed with having too much work to do or having a lot of personal things going on. A lot of people’s stress comes from the job a person chooses to do. My career choice a lawyer and the most difficult part of being a lawyer is the stress

The National Institute of Mental Health, wrote an article titled “5 Things You Should Know About Stress” in this article they talk about what stress is, how to avoid it, and the effects it has on each person. One of the first ideas that the article talks about is what is stress. The article states that “Stress is how the brain and body respond to any demand. Any type of challenges—such as performance at work or school, a significant life change, or a traumatic event”(National Institute of Mental Health).

A few long term effects of stress can hurt a person’s health. The article lists how some people may experience headaches, sleeplessness, sadness, anger, or irritability. It also brings up how over time stress will continue to strain on a person’s health and can cause serious health problems down the road, such as heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, and other illnesses, including mental disorders such as depression or anxiety.

The National Institute of Mental Health talks about ways to help stress. There are 6 ideas that the article mentions. The first idea that is brought up is to recognize the signs of your body’s response to stress, make sure you know what can help you, and calm you down when you are stressed. Secondly, talk to your doctor and tell them how you are feeling when it starts not after. Third, exercise, 30 minutes a day can help your health both mentally and physically, not just when it comes to stress but when it comes to everything. Fourth is to try to find or do a relaxing activity., I have an adult coloring book that I color when I am feeling overwhelmed or stressed or listening to music helps too. The fifth is to set goals, decide what is more important to get done first. Managing time is a problem many people face when it comes to stress. Lastly, staying connected to people an example of this would be keeping in touch with people who can provide support and help, having people who are there to talk when you need it is a big deal.

The definition of a lawyer is a person who practices or studies law also called an attorney or a counselor. The number of jobs listed in 2019 was 813,900 and the average pay for a year was $122,960 or $59.11 per hour. Many lawyers work long hours anywhere from 40 plus hours a week. “The type of work environment that a majority of lawyers work in private and corporate legal offices.(Kane) Some work for federal, local, and state governments. To be a lawyer you need 7 years of full-time study after finishing high school. It requires 4 years of undergraduate study, followed by 3 years of law school. Most states require lawyers to complete a Juris Doctor degree from a law school accredited by the American Bar Association.

The employment of lawyers is predicted to grow 4 percent from 2019 to 2029. But many other law school graduates and licensed lawyers end up finding work in other occupations or industries because they find it difficult to find jobs with traditional legal employers. More people are graduating with law degrees than there are law jobs opened.

I discussed stress, and what being a lawyer is like and these two ideas go together because stress is the most difficult part of being a lawyer and going to a law school. No job a person has will ever be stress-free because everyone goes through stress some more than others. But lawyers go through it in their everyday lives.

Sally Kane wrote an article called “These Just May Be the 10 Worst Things About Being a Lawyer”. Kane talks about all the reasons being a lawyer is a stressful job. All 10 of the ideas that Kane talks about can all be connected and lead back to more stress in the job. A few ideas that she brings up are. The stress, long hours, soaring law debt, competitive job market, clients aren’t spending as much, technology, and poor public image.

Each idea can lead to stress no matter what type of lawyer you are. “Deadlines, billing pressures, client demands, long hours, changing laws, and other demands all combine to make the practice of law one of the most stressful jobs out there.” (Kane). Lawyers get forty plus hours each week. They are always on the clock when one of their clients is in need. Lawyers don’t get time off. Going to school for law is extremely pricey because of having to do so much to get to that step and yes as a lawyer you can pay it off over time because of how much you make but even then it could take a lifetime. Being a lawyer is a very competitive job market because people most of the time choice there own lawyer unless they get one for free through the state, so when you are first starting and have never had a client it’s hard to get one because no one is going to want a lawyer who has never won a case and if you don’t have a good public image you won’t get a job offer. Lastly, technology is the twenty-first century everyone relies on technology to get a lot of work done. As a lawyer, most of your clients will contact you through technology and your law firm may even use technology to give you cases. So if you don’t understand the technology it will be very stressful.

At the end of the day no matter what career path you take no matter if you have a stay-at-home job or if you have an amazing job working for a big company making a lot of money you will have some sort of stress. Even though being a lawyer does make a lot of money and can be a great job experience for someone who likes working in a courtroom, stress is the most difficult part of being a lawyer. A lawyer is under a lot of pressure and can have a lot of things going on at one time. I hope that no matter how stressful it gets I want to be an excellent lawyer that people can count on to defend them. It will be hard but so is any job.