David M Tanovich Role Morality Analysis

645 Words3 Pages
Role Morality in Contemporary Legal Practice Contemporary legal practice is plagued by a variety of structural and philosophical issues regarding the efficiency, direction and spirit of justice in Canada today. In “Law’s Ambition and the Reconstruction of Role Morality in Canada,” David M. Tanovich theorizes that the professional role disconnect of lawyers between facilitating justice and zealous advocacy can be bridged by a reconstructed role morality grounded in a justice-seeking ethic. Such a reconstruction relies on lawyers to formulate, modulate and emulate the set of norms, standards and values that create the contemporary legal conscience, essentially its role morality. I believe that Tanovich’s rebuttals of role morality’s critiques are strong, tie into our week’s discussion of lawyers’ moral/ethical challenges and should form the core of every lawyer’s modus operandi. I will reflect on these rebuttals within the context of the critique and the importance of ethical lawyering as a whole. Critics of role morality incorrectly suppose that the…show more content…
Equity in the legal process faces the challenge of objective and subjective barriers. Integrating a lawyer’s personal morality as a necessary part of the client-attorney relationship may result in decreased equity in the pursuit of justice. I believe Tanovich’s personal amorality of lawyers an embodiment of blind justice. This second point acts in unison with Tanovich’s suggestion that a truly “blind” justice system can only exist when populated with a legal profession that removes itself from the vagaries of personal morality. Canada’s socio-demographic profile increasingly requires a justice system that is blind to such subjectivity. Personal morality opens the door to personal bias and allows us to stray from the core values of the rule of law, leading to inconsistent
Open Document