Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2154042
 


 



Advocacy Revalued


Geoffrey C. Hazard


University of Pennsylvania

Dana Remus


University of North Carolina School of Law

November 30, 2009

University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 159, No. 751, 2011

Abstract:     
A central and ongoing debate among legal ethics scholars addresses the moral positioning of adversarial advocacy. Most participants in this debate focus on the structure of our legal system and the constituent role of the lawyer-advocate. Many are highly critical, arguing that the core structure of adversarial advocacy is the root cause of many instances of lawyer misconduct. In this Article, we argue that these scholars’ focuses are misguided. Through reflection on Aristotle’s treatise, Rhetoric, we defend advocacy in our legal system’s litigation process as ethically positive and as pivotal to fair and effective dispute resolution. We recognize that advocacy can, and sometimes does, involve improper and unethical use of adversarial techniques, but we demonstrate that these are problems of practice and not of structure and should be addressed as such.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 31

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: September 29, 2012  

Suggested Citation

Hazard, Geoffrey C. and Remus, Dana, Advocacy Revalued (November 30, 2009). University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 159, No. 751, 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2154042

Contact Information

Geoffrey C. Hazard
University of Pennsylvania ( email )
3501 Sansom Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
United States
Dana Remus (Contact Author)
University of North Carolina School of Law ( email )
160 Ridge Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 432
Downloads: 60
Download Rank: 212,023

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.375 seconds