Reimagining Legal Ethics: Co-Existence of Dominant and Alternative Principles in Lawyering

The dominant model of legal professionalism requires lawyers to advocate zealously for their clients, regardless of personal moral objections. This role, stemming from the adversarial system, positions lawyers as resolute representatives who must prioritize client interests above all else. However, as instances where lawyers have justified or facilitated egregious acts come to light, there is growing resistance from the public and newer legal practitioners against the notion that unwavering client advocacy is a professional necessity. Critics like John Kennedy, Trevor Farrow, Robert Vischer, and Allan Hutchinson argue for a reevaluation of this antiquated ethical stance, advocating for a model that considers the broader societal impact of legal practice. This paper explores the ethical dilemmas of the dominant model, proposing a new regulatory framework that balances the merits of both dominant and alternative views. The proposed system divides the legal profession into three segments: Advocates, Juridical Scriveners, and In-House Advisors. Advocates, akin to traditional trial lawyers, would operate under a modified dominant model, employed and regulated by an independent body to ensure fair distribution of cases and mitigate financial pressures. Juridical Scriveners, responsible for transactional and advisory work, would have ethical guidelines encouraging moral reflection and accountability, acknowledging their role in shaping legal documents with significant social impact. In-House Advisors, balancing roles of both Advocates and Scriveners, would require tailored regulations to address their unique client-employer relationship. This trichotomy aims to create a sustainable legal profession that respects individual practitioner needs while maintaining ethical integrity and access to justice. Keywords: Legal Ethics, Dominant Model, Sustainable Lawyering