Legal ethics have the fundamental aim of maintaining the honor and dignity of the legal profession. Ethical codes are not laws; many professionals confuse between the two. Code of ethics in law practice explains the prohibitions that are punishable if not adhered to by legal practitioners. Standards of ethics can prohibit actions such as spitting in the public or any other form of corruption, leading to jail. Code of ethics enables lawyers to act in a particular manner, restricted from misleading their clients. The world is full of potential clients who would like to work with lawyers in a court of law, and only lawyers can offer the needed service. The public seems to believe that lawyers can enable them to achieve justice. Code of ethics should maintain the amount of trust the public has towards lawyers.
Honorable and fair dealing with clients, the spirit of friendly co-operation, and the ability to secure society’s responsibilities enabled through legal, ethical practice. Giuffrida (2019) indicates that clients always have trust in their lawyers, regarding them as means to justice; in case of failure to attain their expectations, the blame turns to the lawyer and the jurisdiction. Moreover, clients have the right to give information at their convenient time, and lawyers are not supposed to pressurize their clients (Giuffrida, 2019; Edens et al., 2018). The legal system in the United States of America is challenged by lawyers who might obey all other standards and fail to practice ethics in their profession. Failure to adhere to set ethics leads to mistrust between the lawyers and their clients.
A commitment to legal ethics is a paramount involvement and commitment to the overview of the ethics code. Parker and Evans (2018) elaborate that the professional ethics code fulfills the obligation to introduce professional standards. The rule of law, founded on fairness, justice, equity, and lawyers, is essential to working out the law. If lawyers indicate no interest in promoting and adhering to ethical principles, clients might result in alternative means of resolving conflict (Parker & Evans, 2018). Legal practitioners should show attention in protecting their profession by practicing a code of ethics. A failure to do this may lead to clients finding it difficult to share confidential information. The ability to keep the client’s information is essential. If a customer has decided to share their data, they trust that particular lawyer. Failure to keep private data can even break future potential clients’ trust, leading to the inability to have enough evidence.
Lawyers must indicate capabilities in solving conflict without blaming the entire jurisdiction for some reasons. Without conflicting matters for unknown details, lawyers should demonstrate confidence in their profession and assure clients of the possibility of winning their case. Giving alternatives to clients would undoubtedly contribute to hesitation, hence, resulting in the likelihood of terminating the contract and never consulting with that particular lawyer. Indicating doubt or no confidence while defending clients in a court of law would lead to damage, especially when they are innocent (Giuffrida, 2019). Mistakes made in a court of law may make the case take an alternative direction.
The legal system is responsible for providing its clients with informed consent. There is a need for people to understand the situation they might get themselves into before considering some actions. In cases where clients are receiving services involuntarily, they have a right to refuse the assistance. Parker and Evans (2018) indicate that under circumstances when customers pursue amenities unwillingly, they should not experience pressure, can choose not to give any information, and can withdraw at any given point. Involuntary clients know their rights and understand that there might be disrespectful court orders; they should know about the alternatives available and have a choice to act upon them. The Code of ethics directs legal practitioners not to infringe on clients’ decisions; they should respect their choices and work within that framework.
Increasing expectations from citizens, civil society, and business leaders are one of the most significant ways that legislature and ethical code affect future professional practice. The public is always eager to witness the government establish and deliver higher ethical standards in the civil service and other government agencies. Hence, the public’s expectations are always made for better attention and focus, hence the desire to witness the end of corrupt practices within the judiciary. Parker and Evans (2018) posit that lawyers are mandated to make sure the system runs smoothly for clients’ purposes and serve as examples to new entrants to the legal profession. It would be safe for other professionals if the current system punishes corrupt cases as per indicated time. The increased number of unresolved cases for years means that the judiciary lacks enough evidence to punish the perpetrators of crimes.
Strengthening all lawyers’ ethical competence and mechanisms that offer professional ethics support is required for successful future professional practice (Edens et al., 2018). New techniques need to be employed for purposes of institutionalizing ethically intelligent decision-making in the judiciary. Lawyers granted mechanisms that have already been implemented in the judicial system. Practicing law requires a supportive approach; otherwise, clients will lose confidence in their potential lawyers. The ethical culture that supports professional responsibility and self-discipline considerably enhances professional practices.
Practicing a code of ethics requires staunch positions in decision-making; otherwise, complainants may influence the decision-making process. Legal practitioners should protect their clients from being hurt if they face negative experiences when seeking services. Clients at any point should not experience dangers such as public trolls and media exposé. Parker and Evans (2018) elaborate that not all materials and information should be exposed to the public; some are sensitive and confidential. Whether private or public, institutions should consider practicing a code of ethics to protect, respect, and not bring harm to the parties involved. From readings done this week, Joe’s case could crumble if Dr. Elias released the entire file. The content contained information that could lead to more damage if presented before the court (Marquette University Law School, 2010). Dr. Elias tried to protect pornographic information because she understood the damage it could have caused after that.
In conclusion, people should not confuse the code of ethics with the law; each works independently. Code of ethics identifies and explains in detail specific prohibited practices. Adhering to a code of ethics, lawyers are capable of delivering their services undoubtedly to their clients. The legal system should focus on its primary aim of protecting public interests. Much of the public expect from the legal system, can be achieved by strengthening systems and introducing mechanisms that work toward achieving justice. Moreover, the lack of enough evidence in the legal system might interfere with cases. Serving clients with respect, fairness, and promoting others’ benefits is highly recommendable in the legal body. Lawyers should keep confidential information failure, which may lead to severe damage.
References
Edens, J. F., Petrila, J., & Kelley, S. E. (2018). Legal and ethical issues in the assessment and treatment of psychopathy. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (p. 573–588). The Guilford Press.
Giuffrida, I. (2019). Liability for AI decision-making: Some legal and ethical considerations. Fordham Law Review, 88(2), 439-456.
Marquette University Law School. (2010). Joe vs. Dr. Elias, 1980. Supreme Court. Web.
Parker, C., & Evans, A. (2018). Inside lawyers’ ethics (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.