One of the principal challenges in the work of a lawyer is the need to find a balance between the interests of the affected persons and society as a whole. It defines the necessity to estimate the role and scope of responsibility of these professionals to determine ethical considerations applicable to the case. However, the complexity of this task is added by the principle of loyalty to clients provided by Rule 1.7 of Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Moreover, according to the Commentaries on Professional Responsibility of lawyer-client control, the principal source of tension is the distribution of control and decision-making powers. Considering the above, the extent of the ethical duty of a lawyer regarding their actions to further the client’s interests in the case of disagreement should be viewed through the lens of the existing regulations.
The professional ethics of lawyers about their clients are based on the principles of confidentiality and communication. The former is represented by Rule 1.6 of Model Rules of Professional Conduct and provides for the prohibition to reveal any information about the client unless the disclosure is authorized. In turn, the latter states that, according to the ethical principles, a client is bound by the actions of his or her lawyer and, therefore, should be informed of them promptly. In this way, the combination of the specified principles serves as the grounds for the correspondence of lawyers’ decisions to professional ethics and presents their duties to the clients.
Another factor affecting the conduct of professionals is the need for informed consent, which is connected to adequate communication. As it is stated in the agency law for lawyers, this obligation implies the duty to consult and advise the clients regarding all the aspects of the matter. The emphasis on the importance of this rule is conditional upon the necessity to explain the reasonable course of action. It helps the clients understand the underpinning of all decisions made by the lawyers and, therefore, reduces the tension stemming from the control executed by the latter. Nevertheless, there is an exception in the mentioned rule, and it leads to confusion in terms of the applicability of professional ethics. According to it, the lawyers have a right to make decisions and act without informed consent in the case if such actions are considered to be in the interests of their clients. Thus, there is no further guidance from the legal point of view, and personal morality defines their conduct.
This situation tends to lead to the emergence of an ethical dilemma connected to the lack of clarity regarding the appropriateness of the lawyers’ actions intended to protect their clients’ rights. In this case, the problem is in the possibility of a disagreement between the participants of the process, namely, lawyers and their clients, and the issues deriving from the differences in their perspectives. Nevertheless, considering the principles of lawyer-client relationships, the lawyer’s interests and ethical views can be relevant only if they are complemented by advice given to the clients. In other words, this type of moral guidance can be justified if the clients are aware of possible options, and the lawyers’ independent decision-making does not substitute but extends the cooperation of the participants. In this way, the ethical concerns of professionals should not take the central place but contribute to the resolution of conflicts adequately.
From this point of view, a lawyer must further the best interests of the client. Nevertheless, this obligation implies specific complications stemming from a personal disagreement of the professional and the impact of his decisions on other people. This ethical dilemma should be resolved through the analysis of the situation’s outcomes in all the aspects in case of the selection of one or another course of action. Therefore, it can be concluded that the ethical duty to act in the best interests of the clients should be a guiding principle if there is no conflict between the latter’s claims and the potential harm to society. As for the situation, when a lawyer personally disagrees with a client, it should not affect the former’s decisions if there is no possibility of harm to other persons or communities.
In conclusion, the benefits of following the Model Rules of Professional Conduct regarding the ethical duty of lawyers are apparent for general guidance. However, they do not address such issues as the extent of their control and decision-making powers when acting to protect the clients’ interests. Therefore, I believe that the considerations of the influence of a course of action on others combined with the provision of comprehensive information to the clients can ensure the correspondence to the legal ethics. From this perspective, the necessity for lawyers to further the clients’ interests regardless of the specified factors is dubious. Thus, finding a balance between the needs of all affected persons and entities would be an optimal solution.
Reference List
Chakraborty, A, ‘Ethical Dilemmas in the Lawyer-Client Relation: Concerns and Solutions.’ (2020) 7(1) Asian Journal of Legal Education 25.
McGinniss. M S, ‘Advice in the Lawyer-Client Relationship’ in Erina L. MacGeorge and Lyn M. Van Swol (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Advice (Oxford University Press 2018) 277-298.
‘Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information (American Bar Association, n.d.). Web.
‘Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients – Comment’ (American Bar Association, n.d.). Web.