Ethical Theories and Client Representation in Law
This paper examines a legal ethics dilemma in which a defense attorney forges a client's hotel register signature to prevent the wrongful conviction of an innocent woman facing the death penalty. Drawing on five major ethical frameworks — egoism, utilitarianism, deontological ethics, relativism, virtue ethics, and the ethics of justice — the paper analyzes how each theory would evaluate the attorney's decision differently. It concludes that while deontological, virtue, and relativist perspectives condemn the forgery, consequentialist and justice-based frameworks support it as the most ethical course of action given the circumstances, arguing that the ultimate goal of any justice system is the fair administration of justice.
- Introduction to Ethics and the Situation: Defines ethics and presents the legal dilemma
- Teleological Theories: Egoism and Utilitarianism: Applies consequence-based frameworks to the scenario
- Deontological Ethics: Evaluates the forgery against rule-based moral duties
- Relativism: Judges the action by cultural and professional codes
- Virtue Ethics and the Ethics of Justice: Contrasts character-based and fairness-centered ethics
- Conclusion: Synthesizes frameworks and states author's moral position
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds abstract ethical theories in a single, concrete scenario, making each framework's practical implications immediately clear and comparable.
- It maintains a balanced analytical tone, presenting both permissive and prohibitive perspectives before committing to a reasoned personal stance in the conclusion.
- The progression from teleological to deontological to character-based and justice-based frameworks follows a logical sequence that builds toward a well-supported conclusion.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper exemplifies applied ethical analysis: it takes a morally ambiguous real-world scenario and systematically filters it through multiple theoretical lenses. Rather than arguing for one framework as universally correct, it shows how the same action yields different moral verdicts depending on the evaluative criteria used, which is the hallmark of comparative ethics writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief definition of ethics and presents the central dilemma. It then moves through five ethical frameworks in dedicated sections — teleological theories (subdivided into egoism and utilitarianism), deontology, relativism, virtue ethics, and the ethics of justice — before closing with a conclusion that synthesizes the competing verdicts and states the author's position. Each body section follows the same pattern: define the framework, apply it to the scenario, and state the outcome.
Introduction to Ethics and the Situation
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 toward making moral decisions. This paper assesses these theories to determine how they inform the decision-making process.
One of your clients is accused of murdering her husband and, 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 time of the supposed crime. However, there is no evidence to support this claim: 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 certain 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 paper assesses how ethical theory influenced this decision, and how that decision might change if different theoretical frameworks were applied.
Teleological Theories: Egoism and Utilitarianism
Teleological theories judge the rightness or wrongness of an action based on its consequences (Peterson, 2013). The two most common teleological theories are egoism and utilitarianism.
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 they believe she is innocent, but because winning the case would provide personal satisfaction, build their reputation, and perhaps attract more clients. A person guided by egoism would, therefore, forge the signature regardless of who the client is or whether she is actually innocent.
Utilitarianism judges an action as right or wrong based on the number of people likely to benefit from the resulting outcome. It advocates for the greater good, urging individuals to always choose the option that benefits the greatest number of people (Peterson, 2013). From a utilitarian perspective, the decision to forge the client's signature would be considered ethical because it gives authorities reason to pursue the real murderer, thereby protecting hundreds of innocent people in the neighborhood from meeting the same fate. If the signature were not forged, an innocent person would be imprisoned, and the actual perpetrator would remain at large, posing a continued danger to more citizens. From a utilitarian standpoint, therefore, the community is the greatest beneficiary of the decision-maker's technically "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, not merely because they produce good or reasonable outcomes. It is grounded in two key principles: (i) Kant's categorical imperative, which requires people to act only in ways they would will to become universal law (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2008); and (ii) the Golden Rule, which appears in virtually every major religion and requires individuals to do unto others what they would want done to them in return (Currie, 2004).
Guided by these principles, deontology would forbid the forging of the client's signature — not only because society's norms prohibit it, but also because no rational person would wish that everyone be permitted to forge others' signatures whenever it suited them. If the decision-maker in this case were operating within a deontological framework, they would not have forged the signature, which means an innocent person would have gone to prison while the real criminal remained free, continuing to terrorize innocent citizens. Ultimately, society would be the biggest loser, and authorities would face the same problem repeatedly.
The decision might, however, differ if the decision-maker owed a familial duty of care to the client. If the client were a member of the decision-maker's immediate family and they were obligated to protect her, that specific duty might motivate them to forge the signature and defend their actions from a deontological point of view.
Conclusion
Different ethical theories would advocate for different decisions in this case. The consequentialist and justice perspectives would support the forging of the client's signature, whereas the deontological, virtue, and relativist perspectives would forbid it. Troublingly, however, forbidding the forgery would mean compromising the safety of a greater number of people and unjustly subjecting an innocent person to punishment she does not deserve.
With this in mind, the strongest case can be made for any action that would help acquit the innocent client of the murder charges against her and ensure that the real perpetrator receives appropriate punishment. Ethics ought not to be an obstacle to the realization of the core goal of the justice system, which is the effective and fair administration of justice.
References
Carroll, A., & Buchholtz, A. (2008). Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management (7th ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
Currie, R. (2004). The Golden Rule — the same in all religions? Compass Distributors. Retrieved 27 March 2015 from http://www.compassdistributors.ca/topics/golden.htm
Peterson, M. (2013). The Dimensions of Consequentialism: Ethics, Equality and Risk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.