[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

. . [the] “likely if not inevitable consequence of their legal acculturation.”. . . “For at best,”
Wasserstrom asserts, “the lawyer’s world is a simplified moral world; often it is an amoral
one; and more than occasionally perhaps, an overtly immoral one.”
Wasserstrom considers “role-differentiated behavior” to be the root of the problem. As
he says, the “nature of role-differentiated behavior . . . often makes it both appropriate and
desirable for the person in a particular role to put to one side considerations of various sorts
— and especially various moral considerations — that would otherwise be relevant if not
decisive.” Illustrative of how Wasserstrom thinks lawyers should make moral considerations
relevant is his suggestion that a lawyer should refuse to advise a wealthy client of a tax
loophole provided by the legislature for only a few wealthy taxpayers. If that case were to be
generalized, it would mean that the legal profession can properly regard itself as an
oligarchy, whose duty is to nullify decisions made by the people’s duly elected
representatives. . . .
Nevertheless, Wasserstrom suggests that lawyers should “see themselves less as subject
to role-differentiated behavior and more as subject to the demands of the moral point of
view.”
But is it really that simple? Is there a single point of view that can be identified as “the”
moral one that everyone accepts? . . .
In day-to-day practice, lawyers too frequently preempt their clients’ moral judgments.
They do this in two ways. Most often lawyers assume that the client wants her to maximize
his material or tactical position in every way that is legally permissible, regardless of nonlegal
considerations. That is, lawyers tend to assume the worst regarding the client’s desires,
and act accordingly. Less frequently, a lawyer will decide that a particular course of conduct
is morally preferable, even though not required legally, and will follow that course on the
client’s behalf without consultation. In either event, the lawyer fails in her responsibility to
maximize the client’s autonomy by providing the client with the fullest advice and counsel,
legal and moral, so that the client can make the most informed choice possible. . . .
One of the essential values of a just society is respect for the dignity of each member of
that society. Essential to each individual’s dignity is the free exercise of individual
autonomy. Toward that end, each person is entitled to know his rights with respect to
society and other individuals and to decide whether to assert of those rights through the
due processes of law.
The lawyer, by virtue of her training and skills, has a monopoly over access to the legal
system and knowledge about the law. Consequently, the lawyer’s advice and assistance are
often indispensable to the effective exercise of individual autonomy.
The attorney therefore acts both professionally and morally in assisting clients to
maximize their autonomy, by counseling clients candidly and fully regarding the clients’
legal rights and moral responsibilities and by assisting clients to carry out their lawful
decisions. The attorney acts unprofessionally and immorally when she deprives clients of
autonomy, by denying them information regarding their legal rights, preempting their
moral decisions, or by depriving them of the ability to carry out their lawful decisions. . . .
Closely related to the concept of client autonomy is the lawyer’s obligation to give
33