Any description of the good lawyer, rooted in the reality of what lawyers do, is at the same time, an image of the ideal lawyer. Some ideals we take from the traditions of th eprofession. Pound notes that often we assume ideals "as a matter of course." [Roscoe Pound, The Ideal Element in Law (1958)]. What are these "matter of course" or traditional ideals and what effect do they have on us as lawyer? Pound, in his examination of these ideals, found them "so generally and firmly established with the weight of authoritative tradition behind them as to be a form of law inthe strictest analytical sense." [p.6]. If Pound is right that "men [and women] tend to do what they think they are doing" then our ideals are best known by the character we take on as we practice law. [On idealism, as a feature of jurisprudence see A. Ross, On Law and Justice 64-70 (1958)]

We sometime talk about the good lawyer as someone who gets the job done, who is successful where others might might fail. As Xaviar de Ventos points out "A car is good if it starts easily, brakes well, runs smoothly, hold the road properly, is comfortable. . . ." [X. de ventos, Self-Defeated Man 13 (New York: Harper Colophon, 1975)]. The good lawyer takes readily to the tasks that lawyers do, performs them efficiently, and seems to do so with ease and style. Good, as in good car and good lawyer, "simply means that they serve their purpose and live up to our expectations, that they are functional. Using "good" in this functional sense leads tot he phantasy that we can say with precision and clarity what constitutes the good lawyer and we don't need much in the way of ethics to chart out good in this functional sense.

Being a good lawyer may also mean compliance with the body of ethical rules expressed in the profession's ethical code of conduct. It is not earth-shaking to suggest that being a good lawyer requires that we know, pay attention to, and follow ethical rules explicitly prescribed to guide our work with clients. Yet, following ethical rules contained in a code of conduct does not in and of itself make one a good lawyer in the larger sense of good. While a lawyer can avoid professional sanctions by following professional ethical standards, compliance with ethical rules alone can never make one a good lawyer. The drafters of the proposed Model Rules for Professional Conduct recognized this when they point out in a preface that such rules "do not exhaust the moral and ethical considerations that should inform a lawyer, for no worthwhile human activity can be completely defined by legal rules."

We should indeed be skeptical about the possibility that one can be a good lawyer solely as a result of following ethical rules. Can one be a good person (in the moral sense) by simply following the law? Surely, we would bestow few accolades on a person solely on the basis of having avoided criminal indictment or never having been accused of civic wrongdoings in a court of law. We can abide by the law and "live side by side as strangers and in mutual aloofness. . . ." [W. Luipen, Phenomenology of Natural Law 220 (1967)]. "To be a fully ethical human being there must be a concern and feeling for our fellow human beings. . . . Mere obedience to the law does not make one a good person." In fact, it can be argued that "living according to the law, has nothing to do with man's ethical life." [221]. One can follow the law with meticulous care and lead a morally questionable life. Moreover, we generally do not acclaim as good those who do good solely for base motives. Following the law and ethical rules can never be the sole criteria for being ethical, having character, or being a good lawyer.

A good lawyer if we are to read good beyond its functional meaning, implicate the person who does the lawyering. We would probably agree that a thief or a child pornographer cannot claim to be a good person. There is, in the act of theft and the child porno business a persistent destruction of values (social and personal) which precludes one who ignores these values from being a good person. Yet, the argument is problematic. There are better and worse thieves. Some thieves will kill to carry out their robbery, others, like Robin Hood steals from the rich for the purpose of aiding the poor and needy. In a world where wealth is amassed by exploiting the worker and there is no social mechanism by which the basic needs of the most destitute are met, then a good person might join Robin Hood's gang.

You don't have to worry about playing Robin Hood so long as you believe in the legal system and its ideals. For example, a student in a first year Introduction to Law course put his belief this way:

After reflecting on the matter I see no necessary conflicts between being a lawyer and being a Christian. Both, Christianity and the law have as their purpose the facilitation of social exchange, setting rules by which people can lead peaceful, fruitful lives. In fact, our laws are based on Christian ideals, the two are more complementary than conflicting. What I realized is that I have confidence in the law, it can and does work. I realize that there are many problems with jurisprudence in our society today, people must wait years for their case to be tried, unfair sentencing, and corruption. But these are administrative problems and don't affect my trust in the law. The legal system would not require a total dismantling to cure these ills.

It makes me feel much better about being in law school knowing the system I will be using is one that I can accept and have respect for. I feel myself as having an opportunity for being an agent of good by working in our society in the field of jurisprudence. I want to be able to help people and now I have the confidence and faith that I can do this by being a lawyer.

Other students offer a more pessimistic view of the role of law in society. As one student put it:

Law school, and all it entails, conducts to satisfaction with oneself: one works hard, develops gratifying relationships (at times) with sensitive, intelligent people and one feels an undeserved sense of superiority when one compares one's life situations with others.

The goals and imperatives of law school do not coincide with the goals and imperatives of being faithful to the human condition. In the next three years, I will be continually reminded and assured of the propriety of our society, and its culture and institutions. Instead of recognizing our society and culture for what it is, the chief purveyor of illusions about our humanity, I will be told of the ways to ensure through law the continuity of this mass of illusions, myths, deceptions we call our society.

If one believes that the social order fosters inequality and ignores the need for human freedom and dignity, and the legal system supports this unjust society, a lawyer will face an uphill struggle to be a good person. The good person pursues justice. One who actively works to support a system in which justice is forgotten cannot lay claim to goodness.

Course Readings      Home Page