This program is 22 minutes long.
- Three methods for determining morality of an action
- Two ways to judge lawyers
- Moral dilemmas
- Eight examples of moral differences between lawyers and clients
- Morality and the duty of candour
- Morality and the duty of competence
- Morality and withdrawal
- In greater detail:
- The problem arising when you have moral concerns about your client’s proposed objective.
- Understanding the consequentialist, deontological, and virtues tests that you or your client may be using when assessing the morality of proposed objectives.
- The problem of different consequences being considered with the consequentialist test.
- The problem of different rule sets being used with the deontological test.
- The problem of different weighting of different virtues with the virtues test.
- The problems of the lawyer and client using different tests to reach contradictory conclusions or the same test to reach contradictory conclusions.
- The evolution of the generally accepted principles of professional conduct due to movement from the traditional approach of judging lawyers by the quality of their representation to a more recent approach of judging lawyers by the causes for which they advocate.
- The reason the moral decisions of lawyers and clients, rather than those of the courts, are the important decisions in most matters.
- Eight concrete examples of moral differences arising between lawyers and clients.
- Interpretation of, and ambiguity in, Honesty and Candour provision 3.2-2 of the Federation of Law Societies of Canada’s Model Code of Professional Conduct.
- Is the meaning of “in the matter” in Commentary 1.1 to Code provision 3.2-2 limited to strictly legalistic matters or does it also include moral matters and how the client would be perceived in the community?
- Is the lawyer’s knowledge of moral matters and how the client would be perceived in the community the type of “information known to the lawyer” that is contemplated by Commentary 1.1 to Code provision 3.2-2?
- Interpretation of, and ambiguity in, Commentary 10 to Competence provision 3.1-2 of the Federation of Law Societies of Canada’s Model Code of Professional Conduct.
- The limitation of Commentary 10 to Code provision 3.1-2 to situations of request or expectation.
- Are moral questions “non-legal matters such as the business, economic, policy or social complications involved in the question or the course the client should choose” referred to in Commentary 10 to Code provision 3.1-2?
- Conflict between Code provision 3.2-2’s duty to inform and the Code provision 3.1-2, Commentary 10 limitation to situations of request or expectation.
- The Code provision 3.1-2 Commentary 10 duty to point out lack of qualifications regarding morality and to distinguish legal advice from other advice.
- Considering moral questions early in matters to avoid limitations on the ability to withdraw imposed by the Codes of Conduct.