“This case, Tom Robinson’s case, is something that
goes to the essence of a man’s conscience – Scout, I couldn’t go to church and
worship God if I didn’t try to help that man…” – Atticus Finch.
Published in 1960, the novel ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’
by Harper Lee, has gone on to become a classic piece of literature with themes
running through its pages that remain relevant today. The story is told from
the point of view of young Scout as she grows up in the small town of Maycomb,
Alabama, learning to deal with issues far beyond her years, including the case
of Tom Robinson, whom her father Atticus Finch is representing. Atticus
approaches the practice of law from a slightly different moral framework, that
being the ‘ethics of care in legal practice’.
Outline:
The character of Atticus Finch can best be described
as operating under the moral framework of ‘ethics of care in legal practice. While
being a valid framework, it is perhaps not the best framework for contemporary
legal practice, losing its relevancy in today’s society as lawyers are faced
with different demands. The ‘standard conception of lawyers’ ethics’ is a more
appropriate moral framework.
Ethics
of Care in Legal Practice:
To Atticus Finch ethics and relationships play a
huge part in the practice of law, as he says to his daughter Scout, “you never
really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view,
until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.” His
framing of law can best be described as falling under ‘the ethics of care in
legal practice’ framework. This moral framework incorporates the distinctive
features of mutuality and interdependency. This
framework contains three principles, those being; firstly that a holistic view
of clients and problems is taken by the lawyer, secondly that the lawyer
engages in a moral conversation with the client, and thirdly that the lawyer
sees themselves as belonging to a network of relationships, understanding the
feelings and experiences of other people in the network.
Holistic
View of Clients and Problems:
This framework has as its first element the fact
that a lawyer is to take a holistic view of their client and their problems. A
lawyer should see their client as a person and the client’s legal problem as
one in the same.
Atticus was not just focused on winning the case at
hand, but had a wider view of the position his client was in and the social
problems that had led to this being the case.
To Atticus there was no separating Tom Robinson as a
person from the case of Tom Robinson. The case arrived because of whom Tom
Robinson was as a person, that being the fact that he had black skin.
Under this principle it is insufficient for a lawyer
to take a narrow legalistic view of their client, instead taking into account
their client’s other interests, including their personal interests, such as
their family life. A lawyer operating under this principle will sit down with their client and
discuss how the case will impact their other relationships.
A
Moral Conversation with the Client:
Under this moral framework it is the role of a
lawyer to engage in a moral conversation. A client and lawyer are not moral islands, but
are interdependent upon each other. Engaging
in a moral conversation does not require either party to change their position,
however it contains an assumption that each party is open to change.
Atticus Finch took his role as a lawyer seriously,
always wearing a full suit to court, even in the hot Alabama Summer days; he
believed that the law should be applied to all people fairly and equally, no
matter their race; an opinion not shared widely at the time by those around
him.
During the trial of Tom Robinson, Atticus remained
in character; in his suit, during the trial, until it came to his closing
argument. By this stage he knew he had presented the more convincing argument,
but he was beat nonetheless. So he unbuttoned his vest and collar and loosened
his tie. As Scout discussed, “he never loosened a scrap of his clothing until
he undressed at bedtime, and to Jem and me, this was the equivalent of him standing
before us stark naked.”
It was then that he engaged in a moral conversation
with the jury, it was no longer about the facts. He was appealing to the morals
of the men on the jury. “There is not a person in this court-room who has never
told a lie, who has never done an immoral thing,” he argued. He
loosened his tie to converse with the men on a different level. It was a moral
dialogue he engaged in, as he hoped to open up the possibility of a jury member
changing their moral stance. Atticus
conducted a moral conversation with the community for its benefit. As
part of their role a lawyer can act as a moral guide under this framework.
His morals would not have allowed him to lie for a
client, or to assist his client to lie.
Seeing Oneself as Part of a Network of
Relationships:
The
third principle is that of the ‘encouragement of lawyers to see themselves as
part of a network of relationships, and to understand the feelings and
experiences of others in that network.’ This principle states that when religion is excluded from legal ethics, a
lawyer can be deluded into thinking that they are not a member of a particular
community, instead hiding behind a veneer of “detached and impartial
rationality.”
A
lawyer with a separate professional ethic who ignores ties to a network of
people and relationships is ignoring the foundations of a moral life. It also leads to the personal needs of a lawyer being ignored if they separate
their morals in this way.
Atticus
Finch is a character with a high standard of morals, who sees his task of
defending a man as more than just a job he must do. A conversation that
highlights this took place between Atticus and his young daughter Scout, when
she asked him about the trial.
“If
you shouldn’t be defendin’ him, then why are you doin’ it?”
“For
a number of reasons,” Said Atticus. “The main one is, if I didn’t I couldn’t
hold up my head in town, I couldn’t represent this county in the legislature, I
couldn’t even tell you or Jem not to do something again.”
Atticus
took his role in the network that is Maycomb very seriously, but did not push
his own personal opinion, rather his actions showed the community what its
values were, and what the consequences of them were to be. Following the trial of Tom Robinson, Maycomb learned how expensive its values
were.
The
incident in which the mob came to lynch Tom Robinson that night, and the way
Atticus described the incident to Scout illustrate his understanding of the
feelings of those in his network. As he states; “…but son, you’ll understand folks
a little better when you’re older. A mob’s always made up of people, no matter
what. Mr Cunningham was part of a mob last night, but he was still a man… You
children last night made Walter Cunningham stand in my shoes for a minute.”
His
conduct throughout the novel demonstrated his moral theology could best be described
as an expression of the community which he sought, wanting to foster an
environment where his children and neighbours could flourish. And through his actions he expressed a theology, and a political ideology.
Although
Atticus’ moral theology was to always tell the truth, he was also acutely aware
of the feelings and experiences of others in network of Maycomb. Take for
example the closing scene of the novel in which Boo Radley is finally revealed,
following his heroic act of saving Scout and Jem. Atticus swears black and blue that he will not tell a lie to protect Jem, but
upon realizing that it was rather Boo Radley who killed Mr Ewell, he realized
that the attention the publication of this fact to the community would bring
Boo would be detrimental to his fragile character, and he conceded to hide the
truth.
This
act did not compromise his moral framework, but rather illustrated his
understanding of the feelings of others in the network.
To
Atticus the practice of law contained more than the “morally bankrupt system” that
is the rule of law.
The Standard Conception of Lawyers’
Ethics as a More Appropriate Framework:
Throughout
the novel Atticus’ honesty serves as his key weapon in his practice of law,
however honesty today is not what lawyer’s are known for. As the joke goes;
“Standing before a headstone inscribed ‘Here lies a lawyer and an Honest Man’,
a man turns to his companion and says, ‘Look, they’re buried them two to a
plot.”
The
changing times have led to the development of a different moral framework, that
being the ‘standard conception of lawyers’ ethics.’ This moral framework is much more suited to contemporary legal practice. It has
three principles; the ‘principle of partisanship’, the principle of
neutrality’, and the ‘principle of moral non-accountability.’ The idea behind this principle is that there may be things that a lawyer is
obligated to do at a professional level that are immoral to them at a personal
level. Today’s liberal society contains a principle that a variety of roles should be
pursued by an individual, each with its own appropriate moral sphere, rather
than an overarching moral sphere.
Principle of Partisanship:
The
‘principle of partisanship’ takes into account the fact that a lawyer’s first
duty lay in the single-minded representation of their client, and in pursuing
this goal not to take any other person’s interests into account. This single-mindedness can be described as lawyers having a sacred duty to
ensure the best possible result for their client.
This principle
is one that differs greatly to the views held by one Atticus. The International
Code of Ethics states that, “a lawyer shall without fear defend the interests
of his client and without regard to any unpleasant consequences to himself or
to any other person.”
The
idea of championing the client above all others is a very appropriate principle
to adopt, as it is a lawyer’s professional duty to pursue the best interests of
their client. This has been described by Professor David Luban of Georgetown University,
Washington as an, “institutionalised immunity from the requirements of
conscience.”
Principle of Neutrality:
The
second principle is that of ‘neutrality’, in that it is the job of a lawyer to
remain professionally neutral towards their client, even if the lawyer’s
personal moral status differs greatly from that of their client. Lawyers must pursue their client’s objectives with diligence and zealousness,
as a person cannot be denied fair representation even if their lawyer finds the
person’s defence to be morally objectionable.
This
principle is a better moral framework under which to operate, as it is the job
of a lawyer to act towards a client in a professional capacity and serve their
best interests within the operation of the law. This may involve representing a
client whose defence may require the lawyer committing acts that are immoral to
them as a person.
Principle of Moral Non-Accountability:
The
principle of moral non-accountability is one that stands in stark opposition to
the views of Atticus Finch. The idea behind this principle is that as long as
what a lawyer does in their role of representing the client is lawful, then
they have no moral responsibility for the outcomes that occur.
This
principle entails a lawyer putting aside their own morals to represent the
client, even if they believe what they are being instructed to do immoral personally,
they hold no moral responsibility for the outcome, even if they have knowingly
and deliberately assisted a person to act immorally. This principle is a socially constructed norm, rather than a law or
professional rule, but it is an appropriate framework to operate under, as the
law itself does not overly prescribe moral standards for citizens, and these
citizens are entitled to representation under the law.
Why This Framework?
The
argument laid out above represents my personal perspective as I find this
‘modern conception of lawyer’s ethics’ to be the best framework for
contemporary legal practice, as I know my own morals differ from those of many
people I encounter, and many people I know I will encounter in my practice of
law. Personal morals should not act as a hindrance to doing a job and doing it
well, which will mean putting aside my own morals to act in the best interests
of a client.
Conclusion:
The
timeless tale of Atticus Finch portrays him as an incredibly honest man with a
strict set of moral values. He frames his practice of law under the ‘ethics of
care in legal practice’ moral framework, which encourages lawyers to take a
holistic view and engage in a moral conversation with their client, and see
themselves as part of a network of relationships, understanding the feelings
and experiences of others. This moral framework however is not suited for
contemporary legal practice, with the ‘standard conception of lawyers’ ethics’
being a more suitable framework. Its emphasis on single-minded representation
of the client, and putting aside personal morals, separating personal and
professional morals, to pursue what is best for the client is a far more
effective framework.
No comments:
Post a Comment