Lawyers and Ethics: Where Would You Stand?

Abstract 

This research paper takes a personal look at a professional decision relating to attorney-client privilege. The issue revolves around an ethical dilemma where a client divulges to an attorney about killing and hiding the body of a child in a place where it can seldom be found. As the attorney, I have to decide whether to break the client’s privilege in order to save a mother from years of agony and uncertainty. The paper also delves into issues of morality as it compels me to balance my understanding of the legal profession and my morals. What would I choose if faced with an ethical dilemma whose solution either compromises my commitment to my profession or my definition of right and wrong? Available research confirms the impregnability of attorney-client privilege. Therefore, if I were to become an attorney, I would not reveal anything that the client would tell me, including where the client has buried the body of a child. For this reason, I will never become an attorney to avoid such an ethical and moral dilemma.

Introduction 

Almost all essential professionals face major ethical dilemmas at some point in their careers. For example, a hospital administrator may have to decide who among two needy patients get to use the only extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the hospital. An unkind person might indicate that the administrator is determining which patient to kill. Similarly, lawyers also face major ethical dilemmas based on professional obligations such as attorney-client confidentiality (Philips, 2016). Ordinarily, an ethical dilemma means the professional would prefer to do one thing, but the profession demands the opposite. An ethical dilemma may also mean that whichever choice the professional makes, there is still a downside (Banks, 2018). It is important to state from the advent that due issues such as the ethical dilemma herein, I would never become an attorney. My grounds for this decision also informs my decision on what I would do as a professional in the scenario. As a personal rule, whenever what I am supposed to do collides with what I want to do, I always opt for the former at the expense of the latter. As the attorney for the killer, I would keep his confidence and never break the client-attorney privilege regarding the murder since professional rules pertaining to the same are unequivocal.

Background Information: Why It is an Ethical Dilemma 

The instant scenario is relatively simple from a professional perspective and highly sophisticated from an ethical perspective. Typically, ethics deals with the moral reasoning that determines right from wrong. However, professional ethics take a deontological angle as they deal with the professional obligations allied to a specific profession (Phillips, 2016). In the instant situation, general ethics that define right and wrong are in direct collision with professional ethics that determine what an attorney would do. Based on the facts of the case, the mother of a little boy is undergoing unbearable continuous agony as she does not know the fate of her child. The information about the death of the child would be terrible, but it would also create closure. More importantly, such information would enable the advent of the quest for justice for the child. From a moral perspective, telling the mother what happened to the child is the only choice for a decent human being.

On the other hand, according to Banks (2018), the attorney-client privilege is absolute under all circumstances. Banks defines the current attorney-client relationship as to where the client makes all the decisions while the attorneys implement the decisions. The attorney can advise the client regarding the implications of decisions, but the client’s decision is final (Banks, 2018). In the instant case, the client has made two crucial decisions. The first is to tell his attorney about a past crime based on their professional relationship. The second decision is that the attorney should keep the information private. Under the circumstances, professional ethics bind the attorney to respect the wishes of the client despite the personal cost to the attorney’s conscience (Philips, 2016).

The Decision I would Take and its Justification 

As a professional, I would decide to respect professional ethics and maintain the client’s confidence over the issue. I find it essential to state that this determination would be highly distasteful to me as an individual, and it is also the reason why I will never become an attorney. Herein lies the bone of contention. An attorney does not have a choice as to whether to nor to follow the law, rules, regulations, and professional ethics (Phillips, 2016). However, everyone has a choice about whether or not to become an attorney. When you choose to become an attorney, you have made a conscious decision to substitute personal morals and professional ethics. When professional obligations demand it, personal choices have to give way to what the profession requires (Philips, 2016). Therefore, as an attorney, it would not be available for me to backtrack from my professional obligations because of personal preferences (Lareau, 2015). These determinations are necessary before becoming an attorney. It is also for this reason that not all lawyers are attorneys, but all attorneys are lawyers. First, one studies the law, then decides whether to be an attorney (Phillips, 2016).

The second reason for me to keep the clients’ confidence despite my aversion for its effect lies in the reasons for attorney-client privilege. The American criminal justice system is adversarial and pits the defendant against the force of the criminal justice system (Phillips, 2019). Whether in a state or federal trial, the odds are always against even rich and powerful defendants. To try and even out the odds, the defendant gets an attorney. Having an attorney does not level the playing field, but it gives the defendant a chance (Kagan, 2019). For the defendant to utilize the services of an attorney, full disclosure of all material facts, even remotely associated with the case, is necessary. Attorney-client privilege exists to facilitate this full disclosure. The absence of this privilege would tilt the odds against defendants further and augment the advantage that the state has in the adversarial system (Phillips, 2019). In the instant case, the discovery of the body of the child would make the news leading to the discovery that a seemingly conscientious attorney broke a client’s privilege. Other defendants would lose trust in their legal representatives, thus jeopardizing thousands of cases nationally. For this reason, attorneys are members of professional organizations since their conduct affects the overall profession (Banks, 2018). The conscience of one professional and the peace of mind of one mother, though important, is not worth wrecking an essential component of the criminal justice system.

Conclusion 

Based on the research and analysis above, the most challenging option is also the right one in the instant case. By extension, the initial decision in the instant scenario is not about whether or not to breach the confidence of a client but whether or not to become an attorney. As outlined above, no one becomes an attorney by accident as one has to study law then apply to practice as an attorney. After choosing to become an attorney, the rules are definitive that attorney-client privilege is absolute. Under no circumstances can an attorney reveal details about past events given under the attorney-client relationship. Notably, this choice is difficult and would haunt me for life, but it is also the right decision based on the laws, rules, and regulations that attorneys operate under. In this regard, professional ethics collide with normative ethics to create an ethical dilemma. The only solution to the dilemma is to take a deontological approach and place duty over personal preferences. Finally, the actions of one professional often affect the standing of all professionals. It would be unfair for an attorney to break a client’s confidence and put the profession in disrepute at it would affect other cases going forward.

References

Banks, C. (2018). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice . Sage Publications.

Kagan, R. A. (2019).  Adversarial legalism: The American way of law . Harvard University Press.

Lareau, C. (2015). Attorney work product privilege trumps mandated child abuse reporting law: The case of elijah w. v. superior court. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 42-43 , 43-48. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.006

Phillips, S. (2016). Ethics of the legal profession . Taylor and Francis