Therefore neither the lawyer's personal morality nor the guidelines spelled out in a professional code of ethics should interfere with the client's autonomy . In fact such interference would constitute a conflict of interest between the lawyer's desire to impose his moral standards on the client and the client's right to access to information unobstructed by such 'improper' hurdles. The 'equality' and 'diversity' arguments. Lawyer's do not share equal moral values. Equality of access to the law dictates that a client not be subjected to the obstacle of one particular lawyer's moral values that other lawyers may not possess.
Clients have diverse moral views.
Therefore diversity requires allowing each client to do right and wrong in accordance with his own moral views . The legal profession says it is concerned that the inequality of levels of morality or ethics in the legal profession would serve to create an unequal delivery of legal services. Thus the client receiving services from an ethical lawyer will have a lesser and not equal access to the law as compared to the client seeing a less ethical lawyer. So the less ethical the adviser, the better off the client. That means advice from a crooked lawyer will be the same as advice from any lawyer following his profession's 'amoral ethical' guidelines.