Document Type
Article
Publication Title
Ohio State Law Journal
Abstract
The bar has drafted a code that proves the wisdom of its own precept against client-lawyer conflicts. The lawyers who approved the Rules looked after their own. They have given us an astonishingly parochial, self-aggrandizing document, which favors lawyers over clients, other persons, and the administration of justice in almost every line, paragraph, and provision that permits significant choice. It is internally inconsistent to the bar's benefit. It continues the practice of using the language of ethics to mask controls on the availability of legal services that in turn artificially inflate the cost of the services. True, the Rules read better than the Code and fill some critical gaps. Here and there, they require or forbid conduct for which they deserve commendation. But the big issues are almost consistently resolved in favor of lawyers. As finally adopted, the Rules seem guided by the view that what's good for lawyers is good for the public. Look at any part and that conclusion may not suggest itself; look at the whole and it is inescapable.
First Page
243
Volume
46
Publication Date
1985
Recommended Citation
Gillers, Stephen, "What We Talked About When We Talked About Ethics: A Critical View of the Model Rules" (1985). Faculty Articles. 484.
https://gretchen.law.nyu.edu/fac-articles/484
