Out of Practice: The Twenty-First Century Legal Profession

IF 1.8 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Duke Law Journal Pub Date : 2012-10-01 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2344888
Dana A. Remus
{"title":"Out of Practice: The Twenty-First Century Legal Profession","authors":"Dana A. Remus","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2344888","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Lawyering has changed dramatically in the past century, but scholarly and regulatory models have failed to keep pace. Because these models focus exclusively on the “practice of law” as defined by the profession, they ignore many types of work that today’s lawyers perform and many sources of ethical tension they encounter. To address these shortcomings, I examine significant twentieth and twenty-first century social dynamics that are fundamentally altering contemporary lawyers’ work by broadening and blurring the boundary between law and business. Within the resulting boundary zone, a growing number of lawyers occupy roles for which legal training is valuable but licensure is not required. I argue that the ambiguity surrounding these roles — regarding what constitutes legal practice, what roles lawyers play, and what professional obligations attach — creates opportunities for abuse by individual lawyers and for ethical arbitrage by sophisticated corporate clients. The proliferation of these roles gives rise to key ethical tensions, ignored by existing models of the profession, that threaten to extinguish the profession’s public-facing orientation in favor of its private interests. I conclude that we cannot effectively understand and regulate the twenty-first century legal profession until we move beyond the rigid constraints of existing models and begin to study the full range of roles and work settings — both in and out of practice — that today’s lawyers occupy.","PeriodicalId":47625,"journal":{"name":"Duke Law Journal","volume":"49 1","pages":"1243-1286"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2012-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2344888","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Duke Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2344888","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Lawyering has changed dramatically in the past century, but scholarly and regulatory models have failed to keep pace. Because these models focus exclusively on the “practice of law” as defined by the profession, they ignore many types of work that today’s lawyers perform and many sources of ethical tension they encounter. To address these shortcomings, I examine significant twentieth and twenty-first century social dynamics that are fundamentally altering contemporary lawyers’ work by broadening and blurring the boundary between law and business. Within the resulting boundary zone, a growing number of lawyers occupy roles for which legal training is valuable but licensure is not required. I argue that the ambiguity surrounding these roles — regarding what constitutes legal practice, what roles lawyers play, and what professional obligations attach — creates opportunities for abuse by individual lawyers and for ethical arbitrage by sophisticated corporate clients. The proliferation of these roles gives rise to key ethical tensions, ignored by existing models of the profession, that threaten to extinguish the profession’s public-facing orientation in favor of its private interests. I conclude that we cannot effectively understand and regulate the twenty-first century legal profession until we move beyond the rigid constraints of existing models and begin to study the full range of roles and work settings — both in and out of practice — that today’s lawyers occupy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脱离实践:21世纪的法律职业
在过去的一个世纪里,律师行业发生了巨大的变化,但学术和监管模式却未能跟上。由于这些模型只关注由专业定义的“法律实践”,它们忽略了当今律师从事的许多类型的工作以及他们遇到的许多道德紧张的来源。为了解决这些缺点,我研究了20世纪和21世纪的社会动态,这些动态通过扩大和模糊法律与商业之间的界限,从根本上改变了当代律师的工作。在由此产生的边界区内,越来越多的律师担任法律培训有价值但不需要执照的角色。我认为,围绕这些角色的模糊性——关于什么构成了法律实践,律师扮演什么角色,以及附加了什么专业义务——为律师个人滥用职权和老练的企业客户进行道德套利创造了机会。这些角色的激增引起了关键的道德紧张,而这些紧张被现有的职业模式所忽视,这可能会使该职业面向公众的方向消失,而有利于其私人利益。我的结论是,我们不能有效地理解和规范21世纪的法律职业,除非我们超越现有模式的严格限制,开始研究今天的律师所扮演的角色和工作环境的全部范围——无论是在实践中还是在实践中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The first issue of what was to become the Duke Law Journal was published in March 1951 as the Duke Bar Journal. Created to provide a medium for student expression, the Duke Bar Journal consisted entirely of student-written and student-edited work until 1953, when it began publishing faculty contributions. To reflect the inclusion of faculty scholarship, the Duke Bar Journal became the Duke Law Journal in 1957. In 1969, the Journal published its inaugural Administrative Law Symposium issue, a tradition that continues today. Volume 1 of the Duke Bar Journal spanned two issues and 259 pages. In 1959, the Journal grew to four issues and 649 pages, growing again in 1970 to six issues and 1263 pages. Today, the Duke Law Journal publishes eight issues per volume. Our staff is committed to the purpose set forth in our constitution: to publish legal writing of superior quality. We seek to publish a collection of outstanding scholarship from established legal writers, up-and-coming authors, and our own student editors.
期刊最新文献
The Gorsuch Test: Gundy v. United States, Limiting the Administrative State, and the Future of Nondelegation Stem cell injections for axial back pain: a systematic review of associated risks and complications with a case illustration of diffuse hyperplastic gliosis resulting in cauda equina syndrome. Radiological and clinical predictors of scoliosis in patients with Chiari malformation type I and spinal cord syrinx from the Park-Reeves Syringomyelia Research Consortium. Strange Bedfellows: Native American Tribes, Big Pharma, and the Legitimacy of Their Alliance. Prescription Drug Policing: The Right to Health Information Privacy Pre- and Post-Carpenter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1