Lecture probes debate about differences between the law and ethical responsiblity
Jacqueline Lovdahl
Issue date: 11/2/09 Section: News
Students and lawyers alike have struggled with the enduring issues between the law and ethical responsibilities based on their own beliefs. Samuel Levine, professor of law at Pepperdine University, addressed Loyola students last Monday about this ongoing debate between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law with regards to the work of lawyers.
The general topic of the lecture questioned the fact of whether or not a lawyer's own personal set of morals is a valuable and a legitimate source of conviction in any one case. Should the spirit of the law, which is the underlying intent of our social responsibility, or the letter of the law, which is the literal interpretation or rule of law, dictate a lawyer's judgment and responsibility?
Professor Levine contrasted his own model of the spirit of the law and the letter of the law with that of William Simon, professor of law at Columbia University, who believes that law should in fact be greatly dictated by the spirit of the law and whole-heartedly focused on morality over justice. Professor Simon has created a framework that allows lawyers to address and incorporate the spirit of the law into the work of lawyers.
"Simon believes that the correct revolution of ethical dilemma requires not a triumph of moral over law, but instead these indications of more fundamental legal values over less fundamental legal values," notes Levine. This model will then focus more on justice over morality. Thus, Simon believes that the spirit of the law should govern the lawyer's conduct.
In response to Simon's belief, Professor Levine offered his own critique and alternative model. "[Simon's] model appears inconsistent with the data and intelligence of the lawyer's legal and ethical values. A lawyer functions as an agent and judiciary; thereby endowed with a duty of loyalties to the client, requiring a lawyer to pursue what is of the client's interest - not their own interests," says Levine.
Throughout the lecture, Levine provided several situations that highlighted the ethical issues of certain cases, one of which had to do with the question of whether or not a lawyer should plea the statute of limitations - or the set maximum period of time that legal proceedings based on past events may be initiated - can be used to legitimize the fact that a certain creditor waited too long to demand repayment from the debtor, thus helping the debtor.
The general topic of the lecture questioned the fact of whether or not a lawyer's own personal set of morals is a valuable and a legitimate source of conviction in any one case. Should the spirit of the law, which is the underlying intent of our social responsibility, or the letter of the law, which is the literal interpretation or rule of law, dictate a lawyer's judgment and responsibility?
Professor Levine contrasted his own model of the spirit of the law and the letter of the law with that of William Simon, professor of law at Columbia University, who believes that law should in fact be greatly dictated by the spirit of the law and whole-heartedly focused on morality over justice. Professor Simon has created a framework that allows lawyers to address and incorporate the spirit of the law into the work of lawyers.
"Simon believes that the correct revolution of ethical dilemma requires not a triumph of moral over law, but instead these indications of more fundamental legal values over less fundamental legal values," notes Levine. This model will then focus more on justice over morality. Thus, Simon believes that the spirit of the law should govern the lawyer's conduct.
In response to Simon's belief, Professor Levine offered his own critique and alternative model. "[Simon's] model appears inconsistent with the data and intelligence of the lawyer's legal and ethical values. A lawyer functions as an agent and judiciary; thereby endowed with a duty of loyalties to the client, requiring a lawyer to pursue what is of the client's interest - not their own interests," says Levine.
Throughout the lecture, Levine provided several situations that highlighted the ethical issues of certain cases, one of which had to do with the question of whether or not a lawyer should plea the statute of limitations - or the set maximum period of time that legal proceedings based on past events may be initiated - can be used to legitimize the fact that a certain creditor waited too long to demand repayment from the debtor, thus helping the debtor.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
firestone1029
JJ
posted 11/05/09 @ 2:25 AM EST
what I can say??
Tampa movers | Tampa long distance movers
posted 11/06/09 @ 1:04 PM EST
Quote:
"Throughout the lecture, Levine provided several situations that highlighted the ethical issues of certain cases, one of which had to do with the question of whether or not a lawyer should plea the statute of limitations - or the set maximum period of time that legal proceedings based on past events may be initiated - can be used to legitimize the fact that a certain creditor waited too long to demand repayment from the debtor, thus helping the debtor. (Continued…)
Post a Comment