• The Legal Agent model defines the lawyer as neither moral nor immoral, but merely a tool. • Under the Special Relationship model, the lawyer places loyalty to the client above all other considerations. • Under the Moral Agent model, the lawyer must adhere to his or her own moral code. The Attorney-Client Relationship 20.
Full Answer
> Moral agents and legal persons: the ethics and the... Why, if at all, does it make sense to assign some responsibilities to states rather than to individuals? There are two contemporary answers. According to the agential theory, states can be held responsible because they are moral agents, much like human beings.
It depends entirely on the conscience of the individual to perform moral duties or not to perform them. But an individual is legally bound to perform legal duties. If he does not perform them, he will be punished by the state.
What are Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility? Legal ethics is a term used to describe a code of conduct governing proper professional behavior, which establishes the nature of obligations owed to individuals and to society.
It is the legal duty of every citizen to show obedience to the constitution, commands of law and pay taxes regularly and honestly. It is our legal duty to remain loyal to our country.
Lawyers are advocates and advisors for our society. They work to represent individuals and corporations in civil trials, and to promote justice in criminal trials. Attorneys work as advisors to their clients, informing them of their rights, the processes of law and help them navigate the sometimes-tricky legal system.
Lawyers typically do the following: Advise and represent clients in courts, before government agencies, and in private legal matters. Communicate with their clients, colleagues, judges, and others involved in the case. Conduct research and analysis of legal problems.
Duties of a lawyerProviding legal advice and guidance.Writing contracts.Meeting clients (individuals or businesses)Attending court hearings.Reading witness statements.Collating evidence and researching case studies.Keeping up to date with changes in the law.Representing clients in trials.
Moral Agents In contrast, the moral agent attorney sees the practice of law more in terms of truth and the administration of justice. The lawyer is, after all, an officer of the court, not merely the client's advocate. This concept was classically stated by Lord Chief Cockburn.
As advocates, they represent one of the parties in criminal and civil trials by presenting evidence and arguing in court to support their client. As advisors, lawyers counsel their clients about their legal rights and obligations and suggest particular courses of action in business and personal matters.
lawyer, one trained and licensed to prepare, manage, and either prosecute or defend a court action as an agent for another and who also gives advice on legal matters that may or may not require court action. Lawyers apply the law to specific cases.
Areas covered by ethical standards include: Independence, honesty and integrity. The lawyer and client relationship, in particular, the duties owed by the lawyer to his or her client. This includes matters such as client care, conflict of interest, confidentiality, dealing with client money, and fees.
The term “Legal Agents” refers to private sector law practitioners who are occasionally retained to provide legal services and to act on behalf of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm. Traditionally, moral agency is assigned only to those who can be held responsible for their actions.
Although there is no complete list of adequacy criteria for moral judgments, moral judgments should be (1) logical, (2) based on facts, and (3) based on sound or defensible moral principles.
According to the functional theory, states can be held responsible because they are legal persons that act vicariously through individuals, much like principals who act through agents. The two theories of state responsibility belong to parallel traditions of scholarship that have never been clearly distinguished. While the agential theory is dominant in IR, political theory, and philosophy, the functional theory prevails in International Law. The purpose of this article is to bridge the gulf between ethical and legal approaches to state responsibility. I argue that IR scholars and political theorists have much to gain from the functional theory. First, it provides a plausible alternative to the agential theory that avoids common objections to corporate moral agency. Second, the functional theory helps us to understand features of International Law that have puzzled IR scholars and political theorists, such as the fact that states are not held criminally responsible. I suggest that states can be ‘moral principals’ instead of moral agents.
Ethical and legal approaches to state responsibility have developed in almost total isolation from each other. They are divided by disciplinary boundaries as well as theoretical differences. While IR scholars, following philosophers and political theorists, employ the idea of corporate agency to explain why and how states can be held responsible, international lawyers employ the idea of vicarious action. Neither side seems to recognize that the other has a fundamentally different understanding of state responsibility. The first contribution of this article is thus to distinguish the agential and functional theories and to compare their logic and assumptions.
The core idea of the agential theory is that states can be held responsible for the same reasons that we hold human beings responsible. Goodin argues that ‘the state is a moral agent, in all the respects that morally matter’ (#N#Reference Goodin#N#1995, 35). The state, ‘like the natural individual, is capable of embodying values, goals and ends; it, too, is capable (through its legislative and executive organs) of deliberative action in pursuit of them’ (#N#Reference Goodin#N#1995, 35). Erskine (#N#Reference Erskine#N#2001, 69–70) argues that the disanalogy between states and human beings ‘is often over-stated’ and that states are ‘capable of acting and knowing in a way that is analogous—but not identical—to that of most individual human beings’. Because states are capable of deliberating and of acting intentionally, they are ‘moral agents in the same way that we understand most individual human beings to be moral agents’ (Erskine#N#Reference Erskine#N#2008, 2).#N#Footnote#N#2
According to the functional theory, states can be held responsible because they are legal persons that act vicariously through individuals, much like principals who act through agents.
Commingling: Act of mingling funds of one's beneficiary, client, employer, or ward with his or her own funds; generally considered a breach of the attorney's fiduciary responsibility.
The ABA's Rules of Professional Conduct are numerous, some less obvious than others. In fact, lawyers often violate some of these rules on accident (such as commingling funds). The following are some of the more common legal ethics breaches:
Moral and Legal Duties of Individuals towards Society. Since individuals constitute society, they form the units of society. As a member (or unit) of society or the state a man must behave in a way which is good for all and which is helpful in promoting the welfare of society. Society calls upon the individuals to follow certain norms.
It is the legal duty of every citizen to show obedience to the constitution, commands of law and pay taxes regularly and honestly. It is our legal duty to remain loyal to our country. Traitors are tried by the Judiciary and are punished by the state.
Society calls upon the individuals to follow certain norms. These are obligations or duties. A duty is an obligation. As a member of society or state, the individual has to observe these obligations of society. Rights and duties are related to each other. They are the two sides of the same coins.
In the absence of duties rights become insignificant and duties are fruitless in the absence of rights. If we have right to enjoy our rights, it is our cardinal duty to perform our duties. If the state guarantees the enjoyment of certain rights to us, the state, at the same time, wants us to perform certain duties also.
It is the moral duty of every one that he should lend a helping hand to the poor and down-trodden. It is the moral duty of every individual that he should look after his family and earn money by fair means. It is our moral duty that we should serve our village, our province, nation and the world to all possible extents.
Rights and duties are related to each other. They are the two sides of the same coins. They are the same conditions seen from different angles. The rights of one are the duties of the other and vice versa. In the absence of duties rights become insignificant and duties are fruitless in the absence of rights.
It depends entirely on the conscience of the individual to perform moral duties or not to perform them. But an individual is legally bound to perform legal duties. If he does not perform them, he will be punished by the state. It is the legal duty of every citizen to show obedience to the constitution, commands of law and pay taxes regularly ...