Battle of the Giants: When Moral and Ethical Ideals Collide

When attorneys are admitted to practice, they vow to uphold certain ethical considerations for their clients and the profession. The Preamble in the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct state: 

As a representative of clients, a lawyer performs various functions. As advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the client's legal rights and obligations and explains their practical implications. As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the rules of the adversary system. As negotiator, a lawyer seeks a result advantageous to the client but consistent with requirements of honest dealings with others. As an evaluator, a lawyer acts by examining a client's legal affairs and reporting about them to the client or to others.

However, this duty to the client can often conflict with an attorney’s own moral views. What happens when you are assisting a client with a divorce while you are going through your own separation? What do you do when you have been personally injured by a product and have been offered a position in Products Liability, defending corporations that manufacture products like the kind that has harmed you? How do you “zealously assert[] the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system” when you see yourself in the position of the adversary? This inner dissonance affects our professional identity, the arguments we make in written or oral advocacy, and how we relate to the issue at hand. As the profession welcomes more and more individuals with diverse backgrounds and experiences, this inner conflict happens more often than we think. What do we do when we run into this problem? To put it simply, talk it out. Seek guidance from a mentor, colleague, peer, or anyone that you feel comfortable with while honoring our oath of confidentiality. When I found myself at this particular crossroad, a trusted mentor once asked, “even if you personally disagree with our position, can you still make this argument honestly and with integrity?” This question speaks to our moral dilemma while simultaneously asking whether we are the right advocate for the task at hand. If we are the right advocate, then our resolve is reinforced, and we can draw understanding from the other side to make our client’s position that much stronger. If we must step back, then we honor our clients by allowing another advocate to step in and take charge. At the end of the day, it is our duty as a lawyer to be “an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice.” CO Rules of Prof’l Conduct P.1 (2018).