Client Representation: Ethics

Ethics: Client Representation Ethics Ethics is the study of the rightness or wrongness of human actions, based on what society has identified as its moral values. Individuals are expected to observe ethical standards in their daily interactions as a way of preventing conflict and maintaining peace. For this reason, philosophers have focused on developing ethical theories to guide individuals towards making moral decisions. This text assesses these theories to determine how they inform the decision-making process.

The Situation One of your clients is accused of murdering her husband and she, as a result, faces the death penalty. An eyewitness has wrongly identified her as the killer, but she maintains that she was in an out-of-town hotel at the supposed time. However, there is no evidence of the same as she paid the hotel fee in cash, received no official receipt, did not sign the hotel register, and the clerk does not remember seeing her.

You are sure that she is innocent, and the only way to get her acquitted is to forge her signature on the customer register at the hotel. Acting on instinct, you do it, and then present the register with the forged signature as evidence in court. This text assesses how theory influenced this decision, and how it would change if different theories are considered. Teleological Theories These are theories that judge the rightness or wrongness of an action based on its consequences (Peterson, 2013).

They two most common teleological theories are egoism and utilitarianism i) Egoism: egoism advocates for the satisfaction of one's own self-interest. It evaluates the morality of an action based on the degree to which it maximizes the decision maker's physical, emotional, or psychological well-being (Peterson, 2013). In this case, egoism would push the decision-maker to forge the client's signature not because he believes that she is innocent, but because winning the case would give them personal satisfaction, build their reputation, and perhaps bring in more clients.

A person guided by egoism would, therefore, forge the signature regardless of who the client is, and whether or not they are innocent. ii) Utilitarianism: utilitarianism judges an action as right or wrong based on the number of people who are likely to benefit from the resultant outcome(s). It advocates for the greater good, and urges individuals to always settle for the option that benefits a greater number of people (Peterson, 2013).

From a utilitarian perspective, therefore, the decision to forge the client's signature would be considered ethical because it gives the authorities reason to go after the real murderer, thereby saving hundreds of innocent people in that neighborhood from meeting the same fate. If the signature were not forged, an innocent person would have been jailed, and the perpetrator would still be at large, posing danger to more citizens. From a utilitarian standpoint, therefore, the community is the greatest beneficiary of the decision-makers 'unethical' action.

Deontological Ethics Deontology judges an action as right or wrong based on its adherence to rules or moral norms. It requires people to always choose actions because they are right and not because they are good or reasonable.

It is based on i) Kant's categorical imperative, which requires people to only act in such a way that that they would will the same to be accepted as universal law (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2008; and ii) the 'Golden Rule', which is more or less the same in every religion, requiring individuals to always do unto others what they would want to be done to them in return (Currie, 2004).

Towards this end, deontology would forbid the forging of the client's signature not only because society's norms forbid the same, but also because no rational person would wish that everyone be allowed to forge others' signatures whenever it suits them.

If the decision-maker in this case were acting on a deontological framework, therefore, they would not have forged the client's signature in the first place, which means that an innocent person would have gone to prison, and the real criminal would remain at large, continuing to rein terror on hundreds of innocent citizens. Ultimately, the society would be the biggest loser, and the authorities would find themselves having to deal with the same problem over and over again.

The decision may, however, be different if the decision-maker owes a familial duty of care to the client. If the client is a member of the decision-maker's immediate family and he is obligated to protect them, they he may be guided by this particular duty to forge the signature and then defend their actions from a deontological point. Relativism The relativism theory of ethics asserts that actions cannot be universally judged as wrong or right because the principles of ethics are determined by individual groups or cultures.

Towards this end, what may be regarded as unethical in one culture may not necessarily be wrong in another, and actions can, therefore, only be judged based on what a particular culture advocates for. The code of ethics governing the law profession prohibits the presentation of forged documents as evidence in court. Since the decision-maker in this case is bound by this particular code, his actions, however reasonable, would be judged unethical.

He would be forbidden from engaging in the same regardless of who the client is, how he/she is related to them, and whether or not he/she is innocent. Virtue Ethics Virtue ethics emphasizes moral character and virtues as opposed to duty, obligation, or greater good.

For instance, whereas a deontologist and consequentialist would argue for signature-forging because i) it is the moral obligation of the decision-maker to ensure that their client receives a fair verdict, and ii) it is in the best interest of the greater population that the real perpetrator is arrested, a virtue ethicist would forbid the same just because doing so goes against the virtue of honesty. Towards this end, just as is the case with deontology, an innocent person would be convicted, and society would ultimately be the biggest loser.

A virtue ethics framework, therefore, prioritizes moral character over reason. Ethics of Justice The ethics of justice prioritizes fairness, and emphasizes the concept of giving people what they deserve. From a justice perspective, therefore, it would be unfair.