Legal ethic and a civil action

LEGAL ETHICS AND CIVIL ACTION
Name:
Institution:
Date:
Introduction
Legal practitioners like other professionals face ethical dilemmas in their line of duty. The complexity of the legal system presents challenges as legal professionals follow ethical procedures when faced with alternative courses of action. Acquiring the requisite professional qualifications is only one part of ensuring that legal practitioners follow the law, but professional ethics prevent abuse from the practitioners through following a standard code of conduct. At other times, they deal with cases that question their ethical and moral standing in the society. Thus, legal ethics are a manifestation of the legal conceptions and assumptions in different jurisdictions. This essay focuses on the ethical dimensions in the movie A Civil Action.
There may be divergent interests between the society and a client, and a lawyer typically has numerous functions. Firstly, she represents a client, but she also is also an officer of the legal system that seeks to during justice through the courts. Lawyers mostly act as advocates as represented in the movie A Civil Action, whereby the lawyers of both the defendants and plaintiffs offer opposing viewpoints on the case. In their role as advocates of the court system lawyers adhere to client loyalty in representing their cases. Essentially, with undivided loyalty lawyers are able to offer their full services in the interest of the plaintiff.
In A Civil Action, the legal process provides instances whereby legal ethics need to be applied in a court of law. The movie tackles the issue of businesses and environmental protection from the manufacturing industry. The Schlictmann’s law firm brings legal actions against companies that are reportedly damping harmful waste into a river. With the city water system connected to the river, it is clear that following the pollution the water system becomes contaminated. Even though, the law firm does not have many resources like the industrial corporations, the lawyers of the firm take up the case with the knowledge that there have been increased cases of leukemia and cancer after water contamination with trichloroethylene.
The representation of lawyers in both books and films often captures the role of legal ethics in the legal profession. Essentially, lawyers adhere to ethics when they seek to bring justice through commitment to agreed principles even when the case puts them at risk. In the mass media, those lawyers who pursue justice even for unpopular cases and obtain favorable rulings to the plaintiffs appear as heroes. However, this depiction is not always the case, as shown in the movie A Civil Action, that the plaintiffs do not always celebrate the outcome of such case even when it seems that they have reasonable grounds to bring a lawsuit before a court of justice.
Loyalty
The virtue of an ethical lawyer involves loyalty, justice, and integrity, but philosophical theories also determine what constitutes ethics. Loyalty is the first virtue that defines ethics in the legal profession as it relates to lawyer client relationship. In essence, loyalty connotes that a lawyer presents the interest of the client to his best as well as placing the client’s interest higher than that of the lawyer. Being an officer of the court a lawyer is under obligation to act in the best interest of the client. Supporters of this school of thought say that loyalty of the lawyer is paramount in the judicial system as this presents benefits both the client and society. In addition, the duty of loyalty relates to justice and rights.
The ethical dilemma of duty of loyalty to a client is present when Cheeseman argues that the lawsuit is frivolous. Thus, Schlictmann is obligated to provide sufficient evidence that refutes this claim. The judges decide on this course of action after Schilctmann decides not to take a stand and answer questions relating to the case. According to Schilctmann, taking the stand amounts is against the duty of loyalty to client and is unprofessional and more likely to be subjective. Schilctmann main concern was that, if he took the stand then the case would likely be compromised and dismissed as Cheeseman, the defendant’s lawyers would merely focus on the question that would lessen the credibility of the lawsuit while also putting into question Schlictmann’s loyalty to his clients.
Acting as both a witness and an advocate is against legal ethics and there are provisions that govern the two to prevent conflict of interest and compromise to client loyalty. The two roles of the lawyer occur separately to avoid confusion in the courtroom. Testifying for a client in most cases seeks to build the case in the capacity of the lawyer as an advocate. If the testimony may be injurious to a client then this would bring into question the lawyer’s loyalty as cause conflict of interest. Thus, the strategy chosen by Schilctmann through not taking a stand is the right one, because it protects the interests of the plaintiffs, as there is a possibility that the case would have been dismissed.
At all times a lawyer ought to maintain confidentiality with regards to client information and should not divulge such information unless authorized by the client or required by law .Thus, the relationship between a client and the lawyer requires full communication without the lawyer appearing to threaten the client. In essence, a lawyer could be an advocate, intermediary, and even an advisor. In A Civil Action, the lawyers represent their role as advocates and adhering to confidentiality. As advocates, the lawyers work out strategies to represent their clients arguing their points before the jury or judge and do not divulge information to other parties.
After agreeing to represent the families allegedly affected by the chemical damping, Schilctmann goes almost bankrupt after the cost of the case increases substantially with the law firm in a bad financial position. With little source of income the firm is insolvent as other partners of then firm also have to mortgage their properties for the sake of their clients. Even though, the firm’s main client wants litigation there is an ethical dilemma between pursuing the case and accepting funds from the two companies. After Beatrice Foods agree to settle, Schilctmann must follow ethics on whether to accept the settlement. However, acceptance of the amount would only be appropriate upon communication with the client, but the firm is also aware that the client’s main objective is an apology and not monetary gain.
The movie also presents ethical issues for the tannery’s lawyer who seeks to maintain the client’s information, but is faced with the dilemma of whether to really find out the level of environmental degradation brought about by the client. Even though, the defendant’s lawyer ought to represent the client there is also a need to ensure that there is minimal environmental pollution where possible. Thus, the lawyer is in a dilemma on whether to use scientific evidence that the company causing environmental degradation. If this turns out to be the case then he could urge the corporation to begin a clean up exercise. Furthermore, there is a dilemma on whether to present such formation or choose to ignore them, but would be a misrepresentation of facts.
Essentially, in the legal profession, one ought not to turn down potential clients. From the movie, it is clear that Schlictmann had turned down an offer to represent the client, but changes his mind after being contacted again. Though competent, there is a dilemma as to whether he should represent the client given that had little experience in trials. Thus, competence is necessary in the legal professional, but there arises several questions regarding his practice as to whether he should take up the case given his level of experience, and whether he should take the case to merely build his portfolio as a competent lawyer as it is a high profile case dealing with big corporations with a lot of money.
To deal with competency, the Canadian Rules of Professional Conduct states that a lawyer ought to represent their client to the highest-level standard, as well as render competent services. The rules do not exclude the possibility of errors and omissions. In this case, even if Schlictmann had little experience in environmental litigation, there is a presumption that as a lawyer he had the requisite skills that would enable thorough analysis, examination of evidence and identification of the facts of the case. On one hand, there is an eth...