A Good Lawyer Cannot be a Good Person

The question of whether a good lawyer can be a good person is not one which has a dened and
clear answer. There are many factors to consider when pondering this question, and all of them have
an inuence on the result. In fact, in the end, the answer may merely be down to personal beliefs.
The fact of the matter is that the denitions of both good lawyer and good person are both
critical to discovering the answer to this question.
The denition of a good lawyer is most often thought of in terms of success. A good lawyer is a
successful one. So for the purposes of this essay that is how I am going to use the term good
lawyer.
The denition of good person is not so clear but in general, a good person is most often thought of
as a compassionate person. In this case, I believe good person can be dened as a person who acts
in a way that is mostly seless, or that takes the needs of others into consideration alongside their
own needs. This is how the term good person is going to be used in this essay.
Based on the denition of both good lawyer and good person set out above, the statement a
good lawyer cannot be a good person is not a necessary truth. By denition, being a good lawyer
and a good person are not mutually exclusive, and so it is possible to be both. That said, just
because it is possible does not make it so, and therefore we must delve deeper into this
philosophical question.
Determining whether this argument is cogent or not is rather more difcult. We have to look at the
acceptability of the premises. Here is where things become murky. In society, a generally accepted
statement is that a good lawyer is ruthless. A good lawyer is considered to have no compassion or
consideration for others at all. This puts weight behind the idea that a good lawyer cannot be a good
person but does not completely support it. Just because the public perceive something to be a
certain way does not make it so. And even more importantly, does not make it universal. And if just
one good lawyer can be deemed a good person, it destroys the entire argument.
Based on the general perceptions of the public then, this argument is cogent. However, that is not
the end of it. This argument does not have full support. In fact it has no support. All this argument
is, is a conclusion. So the fact that it does not support itself in any way greatly weakens the
argument. It also means that the argument is not a sound one.
Student Number: 20922567
So from the general standpoint of a person in society, this argument may seem like a good one, one
that they agree with. But when you deconstruct the argument, it really isnt a good argument. It has
no premises, it isnt sound, and it has no support. But it is cogent. It is acceptable to a person who
hears it.
This argument relies heavily on a persons own personal opinions and beliefs. It relies on a person
holding the belief that a good lawyer is ruthless and cunning, and a good person is extremely
compassionate, two things that seem like opposites. In fact, it relies on a stereotype that is assigned
to lawyers.
The truth is that a good lawyer denitely has the potential to be a good person. There is nothing
actually stopping them from being a good person who contributes to society and is compassionate
and caring. It is only there job where they are required to be cunning and ruthless and harsh, to be
successful.
The fact that we as a society dont think that a person has the integrity and strength required to be
able to turn that ruthlessness on and off without being affected by it speaks to how cynical we are.
There is no doubt that there are some successful lawyers that are also good people because they can
turn the lawyer side of themselves on and off. This is an incredibly hard thing to do hence why there
are so few of them.
Someone who is solely a good person does not have to turn anything on and off. Its almost
impossible to pretend to be a good person. Its more of a personality characteristic than a deliberate
action. So the question remains, if a person does not act with compassion all the time, are they still
a good person. This is a tough one but the answer is, I believe, yes. If a person acts compassionately
most of the time and then acts ruthlessly in their job, they are still a good person. The idea that the
way you act in your job would determine who you are as a person is almost sad as a reection on
the attitudes of society, but nevertheless, it requires a special type of person to be ale to turn that
ruthlessness on and off when needed.
So being both a good lawyer and a good person requires a tremendous deal of self restraint, but
some people have that level of self restraint. This argument is therefore not reasonable as it can be
disproved by a single successful lawyer acting in a compassionate manner.
Student Number: 20922567
Therefore a good lawyer can be a good person. The personality characteristics that are associated
with becoming a good lawyer do not have to be acted upon all of the time, and as long as a person is
able to turn them off when they need to then they are able to full both the denition of a good
lawyer, and the denition of a good person.
[Word Count: 970]
Student Number: 20922567
Reference List
Journal Articles
Moliterno, J. E, A Good Lawyer and a Good Person, Page 1
Pepper, S. L, The Lawyers Amoral Ethical Role: A Defense, A Problem, and Some Possibilities, in
The American Bar Foundation Research Journal, vol. 11, no. 4, Autumn 1986, pp. 615 616
Web Resources
< http://www-staff.it.uts.edu.au/~simmonds/Sophy/ethics.htm>
Dictionary
Lawyer. In Blacks Law Dictionary
Student Number: 20922567
Part II: Research Exercise Component
Journal Article:
Key concepts and keywords foe the essay topic: good person, good lawyer, cannot
Citation: Pepper, S. L, The Lawyers Amoral Ethical Role: A Defense, A Problem, and Some
Possibilities, in The American Bar Foundation Research Journal, vol. 11, no. 4, Autumn 1986, pp.
613 635
Methods used to locate article: I utilised the UWA OneSearch function to search for articles
regarding the ethical and moral nature of the role of lawyers. Some of the articles I found
mentioned the amoral view of lawyers, so I then discovered a journal article that discussed a view
on the work of lawyers that was alternative to most perspectives.
Availability: The article is available in both print and online format.
Database: JSTOR
Evaluation: The article proved useful in providing insight into the amoral ethical role of lawyers.
Effectively, the article provided a standard by which one can judge whether a lawyer is considered
good or bad. The article effectively provided a framework from which I was able to explore the
nature of lawyers actions and the circumstances in which these actions could lead them not to be
considered good people.
Web Address: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/stable/828287?seq=1 [15
th
May
2011]
Student Number: 20922567