Law Commons^™

The Ethics Of Criminal Defense, William H. Simon

Michigan Law Review

A large literature has emerged in recent years challenging the standard conception of adversary advocacy that justifies the lawyer in doing anything arguably legal to advance the client's ends. This literature has proposed variations on an ethic that would increase the lawyer's responsibilities to third parties, the public, and substantive ideals of legal merit and justice.

With striking consistency, this literature exempts criminal defense from its critique and concedes that the standard adversary ethic may be viable there. This paper criticizes that concession. I argue that the reasons most commonly given to distinguish the criminal from the civil do not …

Reply: Further Reflections On Libertarian Criminal Defense, William H. Simon

Michigan Law Review

Since David Luban's is the work on legal ethics that I admire and agree with most, there is an element of perversity in my vehement critique of his arguments on criminal defense. I am therefore especially thankful for his gracious and thoughtful response. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that Luban is mistaken in excepting criminal defense from much of the responsibility to substantive justice that we both think appropriate in every other sphere of lawyering.

Are Criminal Defenders Different?, David Luban

Michigan Law Review

No one has done more to expose the jurisprudential incoherence of this view of legal practice than William Simon. In his 1978 article, The Ideology of Advocacy, Simon demonstrated a series of internal contradictions in the most promising attempts to justify the ideology of advocacy. Subsequently, in Ethical Discretion in Lawyering, Simon elaborated an alternative view according to which lawyers must exercise independent judgment in both their choice of clients and their choice of means in pursuing client ends.

In Simon's view, those who carve out the criminal defense exception have been taken in by what he calls …

Compulsory Acceptance Of Court Appointments: Mallard V. United States District Court For The Southern District Of Iowa, Patricia Ball

Georgia State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cross-Examination Of Defendant's Character Witnesses: In Favor Of The Prosecutor's Inquiry Into The Charges At Bar, Risa Karen Plaskowitz

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

"How Can You Defend Those People?" The Making Of A Criminal Lawyer, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

A Review of "How Can You Defend Those People?" The Making of a Criminal Lawyer by James S. Kunen

Defending The Guilty, Barbara Allen Babcock

Cleveland State Law Review

How can you defend a person you know is guilty? I have answered that question hundreds of times, never to my inquirer's satisfaction, and therefore never to my own. In recent years, I have more or less given up, abandoning the high-flown explanations of my youth, and resorting to a rather peevish: "Well, it's not for everybody. Criminal defense work takes a peculiar mind-set, heart-set, soul-set." While I still believe this, the mind-set might at least be more accessible through a better effort at explanation. First we will examine the nature of the question, then the possible answers. We must …

Do Defendants Have An Attorney When They Have A Public Defender, James Eisenstein

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Counsel for the Poor: Criminal Defense in Urban America by Robert Hermann, Eric Single, and John Boston

Split Loyalty: An Ethical Problem For The Criminal Defense Lawyer, Gerald S. Gold

Cleveland State Law Review

Nowhere in law do ethical considerations play a greater part or come into greater conflict than in the defense of those accused of crime. The lawyer defending an accused owes a duty to his client, a duty to society, and a duty to the court. The duties to each are not completely clear and when the various loyalties conflict, fair, safe, and moral resolutions are most difficult.

Modern Mettle: The Misconstrued Morality, William B. Martin

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.