Author: Authorized User
Last saved by: Richard Lee

Ethics and the Professions - Case Analysis

1. Name / e-mail:  Richard Lee / rlee@uark.edu

2. Semester:  Summer ‘02

3. Case #:  2

4. Reference:  … And Justice for all … (Columbia Pictures, 1979)

5. Summary:  A principled lawyer, Arthur Kirkland, is asked to defend a judge, Judge Fleming, against a charge of rape.  Arthur has cases before the judge (involving getting an innocent client released from jail).  Arthur hates the judge.  (In fact in the opening scene we find Arthur in jail for having threatened or taken a swing at the judge.)  But Arthur has good reason to hate the judge.  The judge, as becomes clear, cares not at all for “the scum of the earth.”  “I don’t give a shit about your client,” he says.  The fact that a clearly innocent person is spending time in jail (not Arthur; one of his clients) does not move the judge at all.  Fleming indicates that he wants Arthur to defend him because it is so well known that Arthur hates him.  He wants Arthur for what he calls “political reasons,” so that people will think he is innocent since otherwise surely Arthur, who is known to hate him, wouldn’t defend him.  Since the judge is powerful, the judge could almost certainly find a way to ruin Arthur’s career if Arthur refuses to defend the judge.  In fact a friend (another judge) tries to talk Arthur into accepting the case.  He points out that Arthur once called the police on a client of his and thus violated the code of ethics and could be disbarred because of that.  The implication is that this would be used against him by the judge (and the judge’s friends) if Arthur refuses to take the case.

6. Profession, Professional, or Public Servant for whom there is an ethical issue:

Arthur, a lawyer

7. Normative Ethical Question:  Should Arthur agree to defend Judge Fleming?

8. Broader Ethical Issues:  

•	When should a lawyer take on a client?
•	Must a professional provide serves to all who ask?
•	Do morally despicable people have a right to a defense?
•	To what extent (and in what circumstances) should a professional give in to the wishes of a client?

9. Answer:  No, Arthur should not agree to defend Judge Fleming.

10. Reasons Supporting Answer:

Arthur does not (at least at first) think the judge is innocent.  Arthur hates the judge.  The judge has a lot of connections and can easily get another lawyer.  The judge wants Arthur to defend him for primarily “political” reasons (people will think that the principled Arthur wouldn’t defend the guy unless he really was innocent) and possibly also because Arthur is a better lawyer than the others who could take the case.

While perhaps lawyers should take on clients they think are guilty (since otherwise people who seem guilty but may not be could not get a defense) and while one should not let personal animosities get in the way of professional duty, there is no good moral reason for Arthur to take this case.  The only reasons for taking the case are prudential ones, reasons of self-interest.

The judge probably won’t let Arthur conduct the case the way Arthur thinks is best.  (We see the judge bossing Arthur around in their initial discussion of the case.)  The judge seems to have significant power over Arthur and that could interfere with Arthur doing a good job in his defense.

Argument:

General Moral Principle:  If a lawyer prefers not to defend a potential client, and that potential client can easily get a defense from another lawyer, and …, then the lawyer should not agree to defend that potential client.
Factual Claim:  Arthur is a lawyer who prefers not to defend Judge Fleming; Judge Fleming can easily get a defense from another lawyer; and …
Conclusion:  Arthur should not agree to defend Judge Fleming.

11. Alternative Answer:  Yes, Arthur should agree to defend Judge Fleming.

12. Reasons Supporting Alternative:

Arthur is a good lawyer.  Everyone deserves a defense.  Lawyers often defend despicable people.  Perhaps a defense by Arthur is the judge’s only chance of getting off.  Maybe the judge is innocent but since he is such a nasty guy, no one would believe it.  Arthur should not get his personal feelings about the judge get in the way of his work.

Furthermore, there is an innocent client of Arthur’s who is being held in jail on a technicality.  Judge Fleming has the power to release that client.  Arthur may believe that it is only by agreeing to defend Judge Fleming that the innocent client can get released.

General Moral Principle:  A lawyer should not let their innocent clients stay in jail unnecessarily if they are likely to be beaten.
Factual Claim:  McCullaugh is an innocent client of Arthur who is in jail and is likely to be beaten.
Intermediate conclusion:  Arthur should get McCullaugh released from jail.
Factual Claim:  Arthur will get McCullaugh released from jail if and only if Arthur agrees to defend Judge Fleming. 
Conclusion:  Arthur should agree to defend Judge Fleming.

13. Which facts, if otherwise, would change the answer?:

If Arthur felt Judge Fleming were innocent and felt that he could do a good job of defending Judge Fleming, then perhaps he should take the case.

If Judge Fleming were not a terrible person, but instead of person of compassion, then, regardless of Fleming’s innocence or guilt in this specific case, perhaps Arthur should take on the case.

14. Further Comments:

Several other ethical issues arise in this movie.  For example, a member of the ethics committee is sleeping with someone her committee is investigating.  Jailers intentional humiliate a transvestite.  When a lawyer chose to accompany a friend and colleague to the hospital after the latter has a mental breakdown, he asked another member of his team to do a simple favor which could have a great effect on a client.  And there are ethical issues involved a lawyer’s manner of representing his client in a trial at the end of the movie.  (I’m intentionally being vague here so as not to give away too much of the plot.)