Lying and Lawyering: Contrasting American and Jewish Law

Steven H. Resnicoff

DePaul University College of Law

Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 77, No. 3, 2002

Can desirable ends justify what would otherwise be undesirable means? The answers to this question depends on a variety of factors, including the ends to be accomplished, the means to be employed, the person who would use them, and the parties against whom they would be directed. This article begins by discussing American rules regarding lying by lawyers. The article argues that those rules place insufficient importance on the protection of innocents, have a corrosive effect on the moral values of lawyers who obey them and alienate lawyers who disobey them. The article then examines the Jewish law approach which, by contrast to secular law, eschews role-differentiated ethics and requires more contextual, nuanced decisionmaking. Finally, the article explores whether the Jewish law rules would provide useful guidance for revision of America's secular legal ethics laws.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 40

Keywords: God, Jewish, rabbinic, legal ethics, ethics, professional ethics, lying, lawyers, lawyering,model rules, McDade, morality, role-differentiated, categorical imperative, Talmud, cognitive dissonance

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: June 2, 2008  

Suggested Citation

Resnicoff, Steven H., Lying and Lawyering: Contrasting American and Jewish Law. Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 77, No. 3, 2002. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1139976

Contact Information

Steven H. Resnicoff (Contact Author)
DePaul University College of Law ( email )
25 E. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL Cook County 60604-2287
United States
312-362-8137 (Phone)
312-362-5448 (Fax)

Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 795
Downloads: 133
Download Rank: 144,520

© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.281 seconds