Week Twelve, Part 7 - Legal Ethics: Mile Wide, Inch Deep

Of all my classes, it seems that Ethics is the least academic. The lectures by Dean David Link lack the depth and nuance of other profs. By now, their shallowness is getting irksome.

On Wednesday, Link starts class with a question. “Is there a ethical perspective that coordinates the theories of utility, rights, and justice?”

We wait. The question is clearly rhetorical.

“I believe there is,” Link says, “and it’s been developed by a fellow named Kultgen. He’s a modern philosopher who does professional ethics, although what I’m about to give you is really Link-on-Kultgen.”

He writes on the board: “A lawyer professional ought to perform that act which on reasonable reflection recognizes all moral rights and responsibilities, and maximizes the net benefits of the moral community, and distributes them fairly."

Link turns back to the podium and steps to his right.

Oh, no. Here it comes.

He swings his leg high. Thump. Link plants a shiny shoe on the desk.

“‘...On reasonable reflection...’ You gotta look at each situation by itself. Don't just come up with solid rules like ‘Never lie.’ Maybe it’s justifiable under several circumstances, such as Atticus Finch protecting Arthur 'Boo' Radley.”

Whoa! Slow down and elaborate. Truth-telling is a major challenge for lawyers. I want to call out, “Dean Link, give us your definition of a lie! If there’s a hierarchy of values which permits lying, flesh it out. Which principle is paramount?”

Instead Link powers ahead. “‘...Recognizes all rights and responsibilities...’ This is a reflection of moral rights theory.”

Next phrase. “‘...Maximizes the net benefits...’ Here is a sophisticated system of utility.”

We move on. “‘...Of the moral community...’ Look at all persons affected by an action, transaction, or ethical dilemma; not just you and the client.”

Link concludes. “‘...Distributes these net benefits fairly...’ Justice theory.”

That’s it on Kultgen. No application to the complex and often ambiguous dilemmas that lawyers face. No perspective on how this coordinated approach might better keep attorneys from breaching the boundary between right and wrong.

I start to think that a better name for the class would be Ethics Light.

* * *