We assume, as lawyers, that an adversarial ethic can provide the foundation for our moral lives. They provide a lowest common denominator approach to good practice. They think their role is limited to advancing their clients' interests in a zealous way. Many law students and lawyers cling to the assumption that the adversarial ethic is an uncontestable means to justice. But it is this adversarial ethics that fuels an illusion, professionally supported, that lawyers are not responsible for the damage and harm done in the name of adversarial zeal need not be the concern of lawyers.
Lawyers are quick to turn a deaf ear to criticisms and critiques of adversarialism.
We believe, as lawyers, that we can be both good lawyer and good person. Judge Joiner argues that these well-known tactics should be condemned. Judge Joiner argues that these well-known tactics should be condemned. The adversarial ethic lies at the heart of the partisan role that lawyers play as advocates and is also a source of the pathologies of character that deform the legal persona. More often, however, if there are moral errors which tempt you, they are errors of professional role rather than errors of private gain.