Lawyers play various roles in the adversary system of

justice. Such roles are the subject of different and often

conflicting principles in the field of professional responsibility
and ethics. These principles were the subject of Fred C.
Zacharias lecture entitled Fitting Lying to the Court into the
Central Moral Tradition of Lawyering.
One principle is the ultra-adversarial norm as proposed by
Lord Broughman and upheld today by Freedman. It
contemplates the role of a lawyer as a champion of his
client; that the law and code of ethics should be interpreted
in light of a lawyers principle obligation which is to serve his
clients interests. This is known as the Dominant View of
legal ethics. At the opposite side of the debate is where
Zacharias stands. It contemplates a more complicated world
than that postulated by Freedman. In Zacharias view, the
legal system is not one-dimensional and thought must be
given to conflicting values and considerations affecting
lawyers.
In the discussion, Zacharias compared the two sides through
Freedmans question: should lawyers intentionally lie to the
court? For Freedman, there are circumstances that would
justify lying to the court so long as it is done in the
furtherance of the clients interests. To illustrate further,
Freedman posits a situation wherein a judge asks the lawyer
if the latters client is guilty or not. Freedman argues that in
such situation, the judge has acted improperly; therefore
the lawyer is justified in lying to the court that his client is
indeed innocent even if it were otherwise. But for Zacharias,
Freedman failed to consider other ramifications of such act
of lying to the courts in order to serve the clients interests.
Zacharias stressed Freedmans failure to recognize the fact
lawyers play several roles, not just as clients champions.
One such role, that for Professor Lawry was the lawyers
foremost role, is to make sure that the legal system
operates in its intended fashion. In this role, truth-telling
plays a vital part and as such, must never be compromised
in favor of clients interests. Freedman fails to foresee the
consequences of lying such as the consequential loss of
dignity and integrity not only of the individual lawyer who
engages in such practice, but also for the entire profession
as other lawyers, the judges of courts, and the client
themselves lose trust in the words of the lawyer.
Number of words: 393