This thesis examines the ethical implications of legal professional advocacy in an
adversary system of justice. It identifies a standard conception of the advocate's duty
which is encapsulated in the various professional codes and its fundamental principles of
partisanship and zealous advocacy. It acknowledges that the standard conception
involves a duty to pursue the interests of clients without regard for the interests of others
and explores the inevitable moral ambivalence which such an absolute loyalty entails. The
concept of role morality upon which this conception is based is explored. This involves
an examination of the adversary system of justice and the extent to which it serves the
public interest. It is concluded that the adversary system is of considerable utility in
maintaining individual rights, eliciting the truth, providing an important element of ritual
and sublimating conflict. Consequently, its value provides ethical justification for lawyers
to fulfil the adversarial roles upon which it depends. However, it is contended that it
neither requires nor justifies the absolutism inherent in the standard conception of the
advocate's duty. A number of alternative paradigms are considered but rejected as
inadequate. It is argued that the existing norms of partisanship and zealous advocacy
should be retained but relegated to prima facie duties which may have to be balanced
against competing ethical demands such as the need to avoid causing undue harm to
others.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/218862 |
| Date | January 1995 |
| Creators | Crispin, K. J., n/a |
| Publisher | University of Canberra. Law |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Rights | ), Copyright K. J. Crispin |
Page generated in 0.0013 seconds