4 ms·

It's not a false dichotomy. You started by saying that ethical codes were responsible for stopping most/much of the bad things lawyers could do. I'm saying that

• wpietri 10y ago
  > You started by saying that ethical codes were responsible for stopping most/much of the bad things lawyers could do. Would you care to tell me where I said that? Because I don't see that at all. Reviewing the bidding, gregwtmtno, a lawyer, said maybe we could use a professional code of ethics like his profession had. SomeStupidPoint suggested that ethics didn't matter to lawyers, and his proof was naming some things lawyers did that he thought were bad. My point was that one can't say that legal professional ethics is totally worthless just because of when they've failed (or at least failed to prevent things you dislike). You have to look at its successes as well as its failures.
  • dpark 10y ago
    > Would you care to tell me where I said that? Because I don't see that at all. That's how I read this: But what you're ignoring is the great number of bad things that lawyers don't do because either a) they are afraid of the professional consequences, b) they can get their clients to easily back off because they say, "professional ethics!" and people know it's a real thing, or c) they get disbarred and can't act as a lawyer any more. > My point was that one can't say that legal professional ethics is totally worthless just because of when they've failed (or at least failed to prevent things you dislike). You have to look at its successes as well as its failures. That's fair enough. I don't think codes of ethics are worthless either.