Can lawyers be happy?

[crazy canuck]

What's legal and/or ethical or not is often up to interpretation.

Go to the front of the class Wiggin

[Neil]

Legal and ethical are two very different things.

[crazy canuck]

Legal and ethical are two very different things.

Granted they are different things but the question on the floor is are they "often" antithetical and if so how.

[Berkut]

But then he attributes it to a conflict between making your client happy, and practising law.  There is rarely that big a conflict. CLients long-term interests are best served by acting in a legal and ethical manner.

That strikes me as one of those "useful fictions" people tell themselves because it would be really great if it were actually true.

I am not sure what you mean.  Are you suggesting it is not in everyone's best interests to act in a legal and ethical manner?

I am suggesting that it is sometimes in the best interests of the client to act in a manner that is not legal or ethical. Especially the latter, and most especially when you use the term "ethical" in the common broader sense that society uses it, as opposed to the narrow sense lawyers use the term so they can maintain their useful fiction.

[crazy canuck]

But then he attributes it to a conflict between making your client happy, and practising law.  There is rarely that big a conflict. CLients long-term interests are best served by acting in a legal and ethical manner.

That strikes me as one of those "useful fictions" people tell themselves because it would be really great if it were actually true.

I am not sure what you mean.  Are you suggesting it is not in everyone's best interests to act in a legal and ethical manner?

I am suggesting that it is sometimes in the best interests of the client to act in a manner that is not legal or ethical. Especially the latter, and most especially when you use the term "ethical" in the common broader sense that society uses it, as opposed to the narrow sense lawyers use the term so they can maintain their useful fiction.

Some more assumptions you seem to be making that I am usure of.

Please explain your understanding of the "narrow sense" lawyers use the term "ethical" and how that differs from the way it differs form the manner is which society uses it.

Also, you still havent explained what you mean by the phrase"useful fiction" you keep using.   Is your assertion that lawyers act unethically and pretend otherwise?

[Ideologue]

I am not sure what you mean.  Are you suggesting it is not in everyone's best interests to act in a legal and ethical manner?

Legal and ethical are often antithetical to each other.

When lawyers say "ethical" they mean "obey legal ethics, which have the force of law."  They don't mean "be like Jesus" or anything.

[Berkut]

But then he attributes it to a conflict between making your client happy, and practising law.  There is rarely that big a conflict. CLients long-term interests are best served by acting in a legal and ethical manner.

That strikes me as one of those "useful fictions" people tell themselves because it would be really great if it were actually true.

I am not sure what you mean.  Are you suggesting it is not in everyone's best interests to act in a legal and ethical manner?

I am suggesting that it is sometimes in the best interests of the client to act in a manner that is not legal or ethical. Especially the latter, and most especially when you use the term "ethical" in the common broader sense that society uses it, as opposed to the narrow sense lawyers use the term so they can maintain their useful fiction.

Some more assumptions you seem to be making that I am usure of.

Please explain your understanding of the "narrow sense" lawyers use the term "ethical" and how that differs from the way it differs form the manner is which society uses it.

Many things that those of us non-lawyers would consider to be unethical lawyers would define as ethical because their definition of the term is intentionally narrow so that they can in fact do exactly what the OP was talking about when he said that lawyers get depressed at doing things that are kind of shitty.

For example, lawyers might argue that the company they represent really should be allowed to pollute some river with toxic waste, because Law XYZ that prohibits said dumping has some loophole in it. It is in the best interests of the lawyers client that they be allowed to dump said chemicals, and doing so is in fact rather unethical, but it is the job of the lawyer to represent their clients interests.

Also, you still havent explained what you mean by the phrase"useful fiction" you keep using.   Is your assertion that lawyers act unethically and pretend otherwise?

Exactly.

They do things that they know pretty much suck, but that is their job - to represent their clients. So they create this fiction that helping their clients is, by definition, the ethical thing to do, or conversely say things like "It is always in the best interests of the client in the long run to act in a legal and ethical manner" which simply is not true in many cases. I can easily imagine many situations where the best interests of the client may be better served by a lawyer acting in an illegal manner. That doesn't mean they should, of course.

But it is one of those things that we want to be true, so we pretend that it is true.

And I will concede right now that there is no way I am going to ever get you to admit that it isn't true, but I am ok with that.

[crazy canuck]

You have fundamentally misunderstood what BB meant.  I suspect purposefully given your world view that lawyers knowingly act in an unethical manner because they believe it will benefit their client.

[Berkut]

I am not sure what you mean.  Are you suggesting it is not in everyone's best interests to act in a legal and ethical manner?

Legal and ethical are often antithetical to each other.

When lawyers say "ethical" they mean "obey legal ethics, which have the force of law."  They don't mean "be like Jesus" or anything.

Of course - that is that "narrow definition" that lets them claim to always act "ethically" which of course does not mean at all what the most of us mean by ethically, and more important to the original point, is not at all what the author was saying when he made the claim that one of the reasons lawyers may not be happy is that they know that they are asked to do things quite regularly that are pretty unjust.

Deference to the rules of the justice system is often at odds with justice, and discernment and honor sometimes play no part in the outcome.

There is this very convenient, for lawyers, blurring of definitions when it comes to terms like "ethical". Which is pretty much my point. People in general observe that lawyers often do things that our basic societal ideas about "ethics" or "morality" or "justice" would find fault with, but which lawyers will tell you is perfectly "ethical" by the much narrower definition of the term they are using it in which in fact allows for (even demands) that the lawyer do things in the interests of their client that are likely not at all "ethical" or just in the context of society in general.

We accept that that is necessary for the working of our system, of course. But it doesn't make it any less odious at times.

[Berkut]

You have fundamentally misunderstood what BB meant.  I suspect purposefully given your world view that lawyers knowingly act in an unethical manner because they believe it will benefit their client.

No, I think I perfectly well understand what he meant, and I think you perfectly well understand what I mean, and have no real response to it.

The fact is that it is NOT the case that there is some happy correlation between the best interests of the client and what is legal and ethical. That is simply not true. I can trivially come up with cases where the best interests of the client may be better served by the lawyer doing something illegal or unethical. Hopefullly the lawyer does not, but the "useful fiction" that they CANNOT do something unethical or illegal to serve the best interests of their client because there is some basic truism that in any and all cases

best interests of the client == that which is legal and ethical

is clearly bolllocks.

[MadImmortalMan]

There's probably no way to square the circle for most lawyers. Many of the laws the rest of us vote for have bad unethical side effects (sometimes they are directly evil), and so these poor dudes get put in the position of upholding them because that's their job. When doing your job in good faith is a moral virtue, and that means upholding an evil law or a bad precedent, you can't win.

They need that firewall that says acting in their client's interest is their responsibility.

[crazy canuck]

There's probably no way to square the circle for most lawyers. Many of the laws the rest of us vote for have bad unethical side effects (sometimes they are directly evil), and so these poor dudes get put in the position of upholding them because that's their job. When doing your job in good faith is a moral virtue, and that means upholding an evil law or a bad precedent, you can't win.

They need that firewall that says acting in their client's interest is their responsibility.

Actually, we "poor dudes", are normally the ones tasked with setting aside all those nasty laws.  We have been around this bush many times and it grows as tiresome as Viper's rants about language rights.

[Malthus]

You have fundamentally misunderstood what BB meant.  I suspect purposefully given your world view that lawyers knowingly act in an unethical manner because they believe it will benefit their client.

No, I think I perfectly well understand what he meant, and I think you perfectly well understand what I mean, and have no real response to it.

The fact is that it is NOT the case that there is some happy correlation between the best interests of the client and what is legal and ethical. That is simply not true. I can trivially come up with cases where the best interests of the client may be better served by the lawyer doing something illegal or unethical. Hopefullly the lawyer does not, but the "useful fiction" that they CANNOT do something unethical or illegal to serve the best interests of their client because there is some basic truism that in any and all cases

best interests of the client == that which is legal and ethical

is clearly bolllocks.

Often, the true tension/conflict is between some short-term interests and the long-term interests of the company as a whole.

To provide a practical example: in the field of drug regulation, it is clearly in the short-term interests of a product manager for a drug to promote that drug in ways that are legally and/or ethically dubious, because more sales = more money, and more money = bigger bonus, promotion, and reward for the product manager.

However, it is generally *not* in the long-term interests of the company as a whole, as the company takes a reputational hit with the regulator if its dubious dealings are discovered, and faces potential retaliation in the form of fines, prohibitions, and increased regulatory scrutiny that goes beyond the single drug being marketed - indeed, may have impact inother countries (as the regulators all talk to each other and some, like the US, are notoriously extra-territorial about such matters as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Sunshine Act).

The manager in question may be perfectly willing to take the risk - job turnover is relatively rapid and by the time the unethical/illegal behaviour is discovered, he or she may well have collected his or her bonus, left the company, and gone to work for the competition.

[garbon]

You have fundamentally misunderstood what BB meant.  I suspect purposefully given your world view that lawyers knowingly act in an unethical manner because they believe it will benefit their client.

No, I think I perfectly well understand what he meant, and I think you perfectly well understand what I mean, and have no real response to it.

The fact is that it is NOT the case that there is some happy correlation between the best interests of the client and what is legal and ethical. That is simply not true. I can trivially come up with cases where the best interests of the client may be better served by the lawyer doing something illegal or unethical. Hopefullly the lawyer does not, but the "useful fiction" that they CANNOT do something unethical or illegal to serve the best interests of their client because there is some basic truism that in any and all cases

best interests of the client == that which is legal and ethical

is clearly bolllocks.

Often, the true tension/conflict is between some short-term interests and the long-term interests of the company as a whole.

To provide a practical example: in the field of drug regulation, it is clearly in the short-term interests of a product manager for a drug to promote that drug in ways that are legally and/or ethically dubious, because more sales = more money, and more money = bigger bonus, promotion, and reward for the product manager.

However, it is generally *not* in the long-term interests of the company as a whole, as the company takes a reputational hit with the regulator if its dubious dealings are discovered, and faces potential retaliation in the form of fines, prohibitions, and increased regulatory scrutiny that goes beyond the single drug being marketed - indeed, may have impact inother countries (as the regulators all talk to each other and some, like the US, are notoriously extra-territorial about such matters as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Sunshine Act).

The manager in question may be perfectly willing to take the risk - job turnover is relatively rapid and by the time the unethical/illegal behaviour is discovered, he or she may well have collected his or her bonus, left the company, and gone to work for the competition.

You've proved we've incentive to be ethical here in pharma but Berk was talking about laywers.

[Malthus]

You have fundamentally misunderstood what BB meant.  I suspect purposefully given your world view that lawyers knowingly act in an unethical manner because they believe it will benefit their client.

No, I think I perfectly well understand what he meant, and I think you perfectly well understand what I mean, and have no real response to it.

The fact is that it is NOT the case that there is some happy correlation between the best interests of the client and what is legal and ethical. That is simply not true. I can trivially come up with cases where the best interests of the client may be better served by the lawyer doing something illegal or unethical. Hopefullly the lawyer does not, but the "useful fiction" that they CANNOT do something unethical or illegal to serve the best interests of their client because there is some basic truism that in any and all cases

best interests of the client == that which is legal and ethical

is clearly bolllocks.

Often, the true tension/conflict is between some short-term interests and the long-term interests of the company as a whole.

To provide a practical example: in the field of drug regulation, it is clearly in the short-term interests of a product manager for a drug to promote that drug in ways that are legally and/or ethically dubious, because more sales = more money, and more money = bigger bonus, promotion, and reward for the product manager.

However, it is generally *not* in the long-term interests of the company as a whole, as the company takes a reputational hit with the regulator if its dubious dealings are discovered, and faces potential retaliation in the form of fines, prohibitions, and increased regulatory scrutiny that goes beyond the single drug being marketed - indeed, may have impact inother countries (as the regulators all talk to each other and some, like the US, are notoriously extra-territorial about such matters as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Sunshine Act).

The manager in question may be perfectly willing to take the risk - job turnover is relatively rapid and by the time the unethical/illegal behaviour is discovered, he or she may well have collected his or her bonus, left the company, and gone to work for the competition.

You've proved we've incentive to be ethical here in pharma but Berk was talking about laywers.

Who do you think has the pleasure of informing the company about the legal situation in such cases?