Francis Jeric L.

Emuy Legal Counselling

III Manresa July 15, 2019

Client Centered Counseling and moral accountability for lawyers

I. Introduction

The article of Robert Batress starts with the explanation of the lawyer-client relationship
and most how several lawyers view it as one where they dominate because they possess special
skills, knowledge and experience in the legal field. They give little concern on the moral or social
aspects of the client’s cause; and give more emphasis on getting the job done in accordance
with the legal system. Simply said, even if the client is actually guilty of something or that his
cause shows some form of illegality, the lawyer may choose turn a blind eye on the same. The
reason why he can do this is that the Code of professional responsibility has relieved the
lawyers of moral accountability by separating the lawyer’s moral standards from his work,
prompting him to behave as a professional would. This is referred to as the adversarial role.

Robert Bastress seeks to offer a more helpful alternative by showing the negative effects
of the adversarial role. He claims that the adversarial role does not help the lawyer and the
client in achieving the maximum satisfaction of an issue. Instead, it prevents them from
realizing a settlement which is both favorable to the client and to the society. Based Bastress’
explanation of the adversarial role, the society is deprived of their chances to claim justice and
fairness.

Robert Bastress’ alternative focuses on a client-centered approach while at the same

time maintaining one’s moral values. In the service, the lawyer must not just compromise his
moral independent judgment and accept whatever the client throws at him. His goal must not
just be limited to winning the case. He must also focus on the development of his client as a
person and settle the case in the light of its moral and social implications.

II. Client Centered Approach

 The client-centered approach provides that the lawyer must be an open and accepting
helper. He must use his knowledge and experience to provide the client with available options
under the law while letting the client have the final say in the priorities. It is the client that
ultimately decides what to settle and how to settle it. This approach, however, seems
problematic and may cause negative effects to the society with respect to achieving justice. For
example, under this approach the lawyer may disregard the fact that his client murdered
someone and still continue to use his skills in winning the case. Hence, depriving what is just
and fair.

The goal of this approach is for the client responds and openly discusses all the facts in the
case, including his feelings about the subject at hand. This approach seeks to create a rapport
for the lawyers to understand the client deeply and create a balance between what the client
wants and what he needs.

As to how a lawyer can do this, Batress provides that the lawyer must be open-minded. He
must put himself in the shoes of his client and understand his motives. The lawyer must be a
good listener. He should understand how humans in certain situations think. He must talk in a
way as to allow the client to trust him with those things which he does not publicly express.
However, the lawyer must let the client know his legal options and their consequences. He
must also give his opinion on such options in light of its social and moral consequences.

This approach actually helps both the lawyer and the client in their personal development.
The trust will allow the client to openly provide details of his situation to the lawyer. The
lawyer, on the other hand, would better understand his client’s situation. This would help the
lawyer in applying the law to the situation.

III. TRADITIONAL CONCEPTION OF THE LAWYER’S MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

 Robert Batress explains the traditional conception of a lawyer’s moral responsibility. He
starts by saying that a lawyers is simply an advocate and has no accountability for what he
advocates.

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, the lawyer must zealously represent his
client, limited only to the bounds of the law. This, according to Batress, means that all the
lawyer has to concern himself is how to get his client win the case. Even if his client’s position is
unlawful or unjust, he will not be held accountable so long as he acts licitly within the system
and in the eyes of the neutral judge. This is the traditional view.

Furthermore, Batress provides that the Code of Professional Responsibility create a

dichotomy between the lawyers’ personal life and professional life. In the professional realm,
lawyers must act in settings that do not allow them to follow their ideals. In such environment,
a lawyer must give up his personal values for the good of the system and the client. You are
encouraged to the best that you can do even if the ends is, to some extent, evil.

The traditional view prevails in the current era. The bar generally endorses this view. The
bar's principle self-image is that lawyers are professionals who, like doctors or dentists, work
and do their best for clients regardless of the clients' identities or causes. According to Roy
Cohn, “It is not the lawyer’s duty to determine what to believe”. This means that the lawyers
are permitted, and even required, to leave their morality at home and to perform their work
indifferently. They are required to work without feeling. This traditional view’s greatest
advantage is that it makes the lawyers immune from being condemned for his participation in
the client’s case. It, however, deprives the society of an important instrument for achieving true
justice. Because most successful lawyers are those hired by those with heavy pockets, aspiring
lawyers are given little incentive to create a revolution within the legal system. The adversarial
role that they take forces them to hide behind their professional mask and use work as an
excuse to clean their dirty hands after helping those with unjust causes.

IV. Alternative view

Robert Batress provides that a lawyer should exercise independent moral judgement in his
work. This model proposes that the lawyer should not just blindly follow the facts as stated by
the client but should also make his own judgement of the client’s cause and voice out his moral
or social objections if there be any. The client must seek to satisfy the lawyer’s reservations. If
all else fails, the lawyer should exercise his own independent judgment and refuse to proceed
with the case. This judgment should be based on his own sense of right and justice. The lawyer
who advocates a cause which is contrary to his own values serves will only do damage to
himself and to his client.

If the lawyer chose to accept the case either by tossing his objections away or by deciding to
compromise, he must be held accountable for this adversarial position. This Accountability
means being identified with his client’s position. He should be subject of scrutiny by his fellow
lawyers or by the public. Rather than referring to civil or disciplinary liability, it is more of one’s
identity being shaped by the client’s cause in the eyes of third parties. He cannot later on
defend himself by claiming, “it’s just work, nothing personal”.

The lawyer must not only exercise his independent judgement on the client’s cause but also
on the means to advocate the same. To zealously represent the client is to act within the
boundaries of the legal system while maintaining the process fair and honest. A lawyer must
consider the consequences of one’s actions not just in consideration of the law but also with
respect to the lives of those who are connected to the case. As opposed to the traditional view,
the alternative provides that the means does not justify the ends.

The lawyer must, however, focus on the position of his client on the issue at hand and
exclude those other matters not related to such position. Otherwise, there is a tendency for
him to morally judge his client’s person, which might hamper the trust needed create a
compromise in the lawyer-client relationship.

V. Conclusion

In this article, Robert Batress seeks to emphasize how problematic the traditional view is to
the public; and to the lawyer and his client. He offers the alternative view, which seeks to
encourage lawyers to exercise their own moral judgements when accepting a case from a
client. This view, however, seems to contradict the standard that a lawyer must always be open
and accepting to the client. How can one be accepting and be morally independent at the same
time? It is important in this regard that a lawyer must realize his full potential. To do so, he
must first be honest to himself and behave according to his values. A failure to understand
oneself and to follow one's heart prevents personal development. By understanding oneself
and following our own values, individuals reach their own moral conclusions based on such
values. However, an individual cannot reach his potential by himself. As such, a lawyer must go
to his client and respect the latter as his equals. This is done by show the client his honesty.
Hence, the lawyer as a counselor must understand his client and be open to him as an equal. At
the same time, he must be frank about matters. The lawyer must speak to the client and
approach the moral issue of the situation. He must attempt to resolve such issues by applying
his own moral values. If he just lets the client decide on the moral decisions of the issues, then
he does not give anything and their relationship is bereft of any rapport. They revert to the
traditional view of the lawyer-client relationship. It’s like lovers trying to make love with each
other and only one of them is naked. The lawyer’s honesty shows his sincerity to the case of his
client which prompts the client to be honest to the lawyer. The lawyer’s respect to the client
makes him accept the latter’s circumstances not just as a client but as a person. This will help
them build a better relationship to achieve the most satisfying settlement of the client’s case.

While Batress seeks to emphasize the negative effects of the traditional view, the
adversarial position that lawyer’s take also have their own benefits in the judicial process. For
instance, it helps realize the constitutional principle that the accused is presumed innocent until
his guild is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The adversarial role allows the accused to avail
the services of a private lawyer and secure his constitutional rights. The lawyer on the other
hand is bereft of any worries about moral accountability that might hamper the performance of
his service for the accused. The presence of moral accountability may actually hinder the lawyer
in his service. As a result, clients might be deprived of the justice they deserve. On that account,
a lawyer must know when to be flexible based on the circumstances. He must know when to
get his act real and when to be morally attached. The professional ethics of lawyers means
knowing the difference between what you have to do and what is right to do.