Morals refer to the affirmative representation of what is right and proper; scruples refer to the negative sense that the right and proper may be lacking. My commitment to justice in education occurs as a moral issue; my refusal to join a team of questionable honor, for example, may indicate my scruples about the moral principle thereof.
But there are also many cases where a judge has discretion to go either way, and a judge’s moral convictions will sometimes influence that decision. Again, it could hardly be otherwise; it is part of what any judge sees as “doing justice.”
This is because a great many lawyers made the decision to go to law school not because they really wanted to be lawyers, but because they wanted "wealth" or "prestige" or "respect" or sadly, couldn't think of anything better to do. Aimlessness isn't a problem with comparable professions.
The danger, of course, is that judges, like other human beings, sometimes mistake policy issues for moral issues, and a wise judge will be on guard against this danger. Cohen: Gentlemen, I’m somewhat confused.
So adjudication rules give judges a legal duty to apply the law. If judges have a moral duty to obey adjudication rules, then they have a moral duty to apply the law. The stronger their moral duty to obey adjudication rules, the stronger their moral duty to apply the law.
Common complaints of ethical misconduct include improper demeanour; failure to properly disqualify when the judge has a conflict of interest; engaging in ex parte communication and failure to execute their judicial duties in a timely fashion. Behaviour outside of the courtroom can also be at issue.
A judge always should act with dignity and perform his duties to the highest standards to uphold and maintain the integrity of his office. Public confidence benefits when people bringing their matters to court can trust that a judge will act honorably in the discharge of his duties.
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges includes the ethical canons that apply to federal judges and provides guidance on their performance of official duties and engagement in a variety of outside activities.
If ethics, in general, is a worthy life proposal, judicial ethics is the promise of good justice insofar as it incorporates the qualities necessary to achieve the end assigned to it by the Constitution: the protection of the rights of citizens.
Judicial ethics consists of the standards and norms that bear on judges and covers such matters as how to maintain independence, impartiality, and avoid impropriety. service is a paramount matter. Acceptability of the judgment depends upon the credibility of the conduct, honesty, integrity and character of the officer.
a person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence. They hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of 70 years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office.
Judges must be open-minded about such facts. They must make factual findings based only on the evidence presented by the parties, and they should not opine about the facts before deciding the case.
Federal judges must abide by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, a set of ethical principles and guidelines adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States.
In a matter of any grievance relating to delay in judgement or not a fair judgement or miscarriage of Justice, the petitioner is suggested to go for judicial remedy by making an appeal or any other events before the appropriate Court of Law within the allotted time limit.
The oath further requires that judges disregard their personal opinions on social, political, and legal issues and scrupulously follow the law. Judicial impartiality demands that the rule of law prevail no matter how strongly a judge holds a personal view or how vehemently a judge disagrees with the law.
5 To Haines, the factors most likely to influence judicial decisions are: (1) "direct influences" which include: (a) legal and political experiences; (b) political affiliations and opinions; and (c) intellectual and temperamental traits; and (2) "indirect and remote influences" which include: (a) legal and general ...
Maintenance of law and order within a society is of utmost importance and lawyers play a key role in ensuring that law and order is maintained. The profession of a lawyer is a noble one and a lawyer is often seen as someone who fights for the rights of individuals and defends them in the trickiest of situations.
While spelling out the correct legal position, the Karnataka High Court has in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Virendra Khanna vs State of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.
Societies generally go through a series of seismic cultural changes that force individuals to come to terms with their regressive attitudes and biases. One of these changes has been the gradual positive shift in acceptance for the LGBTQIA+ community.
It is quite significant from all angles to note that the Apex Court has as recently as on January 25, 2022 in a brief, brilliant and balanced judgment titled Joseph Stephen vs Santhanasamy in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83 and in Criminal Appeal Nos.
The phenomenal growth in the accessibility of child pornography on social media has created a strange opportunity for individuals to have an anonymised, free of cost, and unrestrained approach to a virtually limitless range of lewd texts, pictures and animated gifs, and audio-visual materials.
While drawing the red line on what a Kazi can do in his role to settle dispute, the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court on January 12, 2022 has in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Aadil vs Union of India and others in 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 13 in Writ Petition No.
In a significant development, we saw how the Karnataka High Court in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Sri Venkatesh and others vs State of Karnataka and Smt Gulzar GP in 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 24 and Criminal Petition No.
What we are both saying is that, in most cases, a judge’s job is to decide a case on the basis of reason and practice rather than by resorting to the judge’s personal sense of morality, which may often amount to little more than ideological preferences. Advertisement.
After all, much of the law is, in a sense, applied morality, so if a particular result seems repugnant to basic and widely shared moral principles, a judge has to ask whether a big mistake has been made that needs to be corrected before the law loses its moral force.
A dialogue on how to weigh the law and common sense on the bench. Neil Gorsuch is sworn in to testify at his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 20. Starting last month, Slate began a series of monthly dialogues between two of the nation’s most esteemed jurists, Richard A. Posner and Jed S. Rakoff. ...
Advertisement. Judge Jed S. Rakoff: As Judge Posner’s statement suggests, it is a matter of degree. Every judge sooner or later feels obliged to make a decision he regards as “unfair” but mandated by the law. If judges are to fulfill their basic duty to apply the law impartially, it could hardly be otherwise.
But in so deciding, a judge should not, and often cannot blind himself to the moral implications of deciding one way or the other, and in such circumstances, it is appropriate for the judge to hesitate long and hard before embracing a conclusion that seems contrary to everyday moral principles.
Starting last month, Slate began a series of monthly dialogues between two of the nation’s most esteemed jurists, Richard A. Posner and Jed S. Rakoff.
But while the Supreme Court has not adopted either of these views, it has nevertheless recognized that the death penalty presents moral questions that must be taken into account in deciding what is required for death penalty statutes to pass constitutional muster, because, in the court’s words, “death is different.”.
Communication. A lawyer must be able to communicate effectively with a client. When a client asks for an explanation, the lawyer must provide it within a reasonable time. A lawyer must inform a client about changes in a case caused by time and circumstances. Fees.
In a lawyer-client relationship, acting responsibly involves duties on both sides—and often involves some hard work. You have a right to expect competent representation from your lawyer. However, every case has at least two sides. If you are unhappy with your lawyer, it is important to determine the reasons.
Unnecessary delays can often damage a case. If, because of overwork or any other reason, a lawyer is unable to spend the required time and energy on a case , the lawyer should refuse from the beginning to take the case. A lawyer must be able to communicate effectively with a client.
If you believe you have a valid complaint about how your lawyer has handled your case, inform the organization that governs law licenses in your state. Usually this is the disciplinary board of the highest court in your state. In some states, the state bar association is responsible for disciplining lawyers.
How a lawyer should act, in both professional and private life, is controlled by the rules of professional conduct in the state or states in which he or she is licensed to practice. These rules are usually administered by the state’s highest court through its disciplinary board.
If your lawyer is unwilling to address your complaints, consider taking your legal affairs to another lawyer. You can decide whom to hire (and fire) as your lawyer. However, remember that when you fire a lawyer, you may be charged a reasonable amount for the work already done.
A lack of communication causes many problems. If your lawyer appears to have acted improperly, or did not do something that you think he or she should have done, talk with your lawyer about it. You may be satisfied once you understand the circumstances better. I have tried to discuss my complaints with my lawyer.
Most people hired attorneys because they don't want to sit in court. Well, truth be told, neither do I. The difference between lawyer and client is that the lawyer expects it to take a long time and understands. The client typically thinks it's unjustified. So, your hard truth is that each case takes time. Be patient.
Credibility is one of the most important things in this world - and most important in a courtroom. If you care enough only to wear sweats to the courthouse, then the judge will see that you don't care, and that will be reflected in their desire to help you, listen to you, and decide in your favor. Step it up.
Tell the Truth. If your lawyer doubts you in the consultation, or doesn't think you have a case, while that may change over time, getting over an initial disbelief is very hard. You have to prove your case. Your attorney is not your witness. They are your advocate - but you are responsible for coming up with proof.
If the judge can see your boobs, he's not listening to your story. If I can see your boobs, then I know you didn't care enough about yourself to talk to an attorney. Dress like you are going to church. Credibility is one of the most important things in this world - and most important in a courtroom.
If you don't pay your lawyer on the day of trial, or however you have agreed to, then while he or she may be obligated by other ethical duties to do his/her best, they won't be motivated by sympathy for you, and it will show in court.
While lawyers can certainly take your money and your time and we can file a case that will be very hard to win, if you don't care enough about your life to get a contract, the judge is not very likely to be on your side. At least, not automatically. Oral contracts are extremely hard to prove. What are the terms.
Don' t forget that lawyers don't always need to take more cases. Yes, new clients are a great thing, but I don't want clients that will eat all my time and get no where fast. Your tip: keep your communication very simple and to the point.
In essence, Rule 2.11 (C) concludes that despite a situation where a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, the judge may preside with permission of the lawyers and parties if the judge does not have a personal bias or prejudice or personal knowledge of facts in proceeding.
But, in addition, Rule 2.11 (A) (2) specifies situations where “the judge knows that the judge, the judge’s spouse or domestic partner, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse or domestic partner of such a person is: (a) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, general partner, ...
Eighteenth-century British jurist Sir William Blackstone rejected disqualification for such reasons and concluded a judge should be disqualified only for pecuniary interest in a matter. For many years, that was the standard in English courts, and courts in the U.S. followed suit.
Shutterstock. A judge need not automatically recuse or be disqualified if a lawyer or party in a matter before the judge is an acquaintance or friend: However, recusal or disqualification is necessary when the judge is in a close personal relationship with a lawyer or party in a matter, according to a formal opinion released Thursday by ...