Wasserstrom's Argument in "Lawyers as

Wasserstrom's argument in "lawyers as professionals: Some Moral issues" The purpose of the present paper is to summarize Wasserstrom's argument in "Lawyers as professionals: Some Moral issues." The role of the lawyer is that of defending the cause of his client. The ethical dimension of the cause under discussion is not a matter that he needs to care about. Under these circumstances, it is easy to understand why Richard Wasserstrom wonders whether a good lawyer can be a good person.

The major theme which he deals with is represented by the relation between business ethics (the law business to be specific) and ethics and morality in general. The major claim that the author supports is that the approach according to which, a lawyer does not have any kind of moral responsibility when, through a professional act, provides his client with the opportunity to achieve a legal yet immoral purpose is wrong.

It must be underlined that since the writer initiates a discussion supported basically by the profession factor, one might suppose the debate could expand to all professions in general and some professions in particular (the physicians are believed to hold a similar status). Wasserstrom tries to demonstrate that the his critical views ought to be applied to the lawyers category exclusively.

In order to support this claim he makes a distinction between the broad and the narrow sense of the term "professional," highlighting the fact that professions "require a substantial period of formal education, the comprehension of a substantial amount of theoretical knowledge and the utilization of a substantial amount of intellectual ability, being largely self-regulating, representing an economic monopoly and implying significant interpersonal relationships." The role-differentiated behavior is a further supportive argument which Wasserstrom brings.

His thesis is that the social role held by the professional determines the moral implications of his professional acts. Some social roles require that certain facts and moral ideas be ignored. RDB- Role Differentiated Behavior "often alters, if not eliminates, the significance of those moral considerations that would obtain, were it not fro the presence of the role." Wasserstrom concentrates upon the relationship which is established between the lawyer and the client. He brings about two criticisms.

The first one focuses on the relation between the lawyer and the other people in general, saying that "the lawyer-client relationship renders the lawyer at best systematically amoral and at worst more than occasionally immoral in his or her dealings with the rest of mankind." The second one focuses on the relationship between the lawyer and the client.

The author believes that this "relationship is morally objectionable because it is one in which the lawyer dominates and in which the lawyer typically and perhaps inevitable, treats the client in both an impersonal and a paternalistic fashion." The whole morality issue is derived from the professional dimension, but in Wasserstrom's opinion, the case of the lawyer is different from other professions.

The fact that the lawyers professional acts are directly connected to the respect of the law (the basis of which ought to be the respect for moral principles) renders the lawyer's.