Moral and Ethical Dilemma in the ase of Spaulding v Zimmerman Case Study

Moral and Ethical Dilemma in the ase of Spaulding v Zimmerman - Case Study ExampleThe Law Council of Australia has established rules for model conduct of lawyers, however, these tend to rotate around a client-centered climb up which is inimical to the practice of law in an ethical manner, rather it tends to be centered around better earning and protecting the client at any cost. Such a client-centered approach makes lawyers amoral and indifferent to maintain ethical standards or morality in the practice of law, thereby engaging in role-differentiated behavior that ignores moral considerations in the case of clients, which would be relevant and applicable in the lawyers own life.Wasserstrom argues that while such an approach may be useful in criminal cases in ensuring that all clients get a fair chance in court, irrespective of the lawyers ad hominem convictions in that relevant area, it is not applicable on a wider basis to all cases. Positivist school of thought also separates l aw and morals, so that a lawyer is not necessarily required to make a moral decision, rather he/she is expected to ensure that the clients trump interests are served as far as possible within the framework of the law. In the instant case of Spaulding v Zimmerman, the divulge that arises is the need to disclose potentially damaging information mandated from an ethical standpoint. Lawyers are to work in the best interests of their clients, yet they are also considered officers of the Court who must serve the cause of fairness, equity and justice. A lawyer has a paramount duty to the Court to pursue the course of justice, which shapes the kind of society that we live in. Allowing individuals to contend with wrongdoing is not in the interests of justice or fairness to all men. Therefore, in the instant case, the passkey responsibility of the lawyer would have mandated the disclosure of knowledge that could be inimical to the Plaintiff in the vast run, especially since the Defendant s were morally in the wrong, to have caused bodily harm to the Plaintiff.