Cab_Rank_Rule

The ‘Good’ and the ‘Bad’ of the Cab Rank Rule The cab rank rule is possibly the most prominent and distinguishing ethical rule of the English Bar. Barristers are compelled by the Code of Conduct to implement the ‘cab rank rule’. Under the ‘cab rank rule’, self-employed barristers have a fiduciary duty and are obliged to be accessible to clients on a ‘first-come, first served’ basis. This principle indicates arguments which rejection is inexcusable and unjustifiable, regardless of if the suit is inconvenient and unsuitable for the barrister for any cause. The rule indicates the restricted situations such the duties of lawyers, affordability of fees and the expertise of the lawyer is limited in that area; for which a lawyer can repudiate a client. Despite these exceptions, the rule resumes having substantial judicial power and is a resource of statements to ethical indifference and principled jurisdiction. The application of the ‘cab rank rule’ under the legal system has had many debates about whether this principle represents everything that is good and everything that is bad about the legal profession. The most fundamental reason of the ‘cab rank rule’ emanates from the ratification that admission to legal demonstration is a vital just for individuals as it is basic for the adversarial to operate effectively. Pannick (1992) declares that ‘any lawyer who does not understand the purpose of the rule really has no business being an advocate’. He emphasised the elimination of the rule would be to undermine and misjudge the detachment of the lawyer and would account people to miscomprehend that an attorney’s reasoning are not essentially his personal conviction but instead recommendations of his client. The ‘cab rank rule’ represents everything that is good about the legal system as it’is an intrinsic protection to the defenceless despite how abhorrent and despicable the accusations against them are, they still have a right for a legal representation and are granted services with admission to the law. It shelters people from being alleged to ransom, as it comprises ethics for its universal lawyers entailing them to sustain the standard. It has been debated that the ‘cab rank principle’, can be an obscured rule, as it is a confinement of freedom, ineffective, unable to be legitimized and it impedes personal choice. It has also been argued that the rule is anarchistic and illegitimate as it corresponds to everything that is bad about the legal profession. Complexity with the ‘cab rank rule’ is the related obligation on the barrister to be conscientiously impartial. The advocate is simply a representative, thus their moral verdict should not be inflicted on the client. Barristers therefore are incapable to repudiate to take part of a case on the grounds that their own individual ethics violate the rule. Additional problem correlated with the cab rank principle is that it disregards the financial struggles that the majority of people have when acquiring for a lawyer. The ‘cab rank rule’ is objectionable from the perception of barristers due to the burden of commitment which requires representing clients against their will. Clemente (2004) undermines the merits of the ‘cab rank rule’ by alleging that it promotes professional impassiveness and claiming that ‘any reasonably successful barrister will be able to assert that his current professional and private commitments preclude them from taking on a case that is unattractive...’ The ‘unsuccessfulness’ of the rule has lead to many arguments regarding the abandonment of this principle as there are many ways to destabilize its process, as it is also inappropriate for the legal profession as lawyers are not capable to institute a relationship with their clients founded on trust and because this rule may be abused by the wealthy clients.Some lawyers believe that it is ethically unbearable and challenging to be united with clients who are morally disagreeable and heinous, and thus are incapable of representing the client, regardless of the rules obliging them to do so. This statement illustrates how the cab rank rule contravenes freedom of association by denying the lawyers the right to liberty; the right to be involved with people of their own choice. Through this it becomes clear that the cab rank rule represents everything that is bad in the legal profession and lawyers should not be forced to represent all clients except if there is an evident advantage for the advocate. Operation of the Legal System and the Well being of Lawyers with relation to the ‘Cab Rank Rule’ Barristers grant admission to the legal system; hence they play a fundamental part in presenting admission to justice and the legal system. Through its rules the ‘cab rank’ eradicates legal misconduct leading towards an effective operation of the legal system as well as the ethical well being of lawyers depend on its existence. The fundamental obligations highlighted in the cab rank rule provide a guideline for the effective administration and the operation of the legal system. Such rules are applied as a directive for regulating the ethical well being of lawyers in the profession, this is achieved by entailing a lawyer to acknowledge client’s commands and to operate within their fundamental commitment. The Cab Rank Rule plays a significant role in the legal system as its principle lead towards a more effective system, this is achievable through the application of the law and violation of it is believed to be a critical disciplinary misdemeanour. This rule is also fundamental to the legal professional, the code of conduct and the ethical well being of lawyers, without it justice would be unattainable and legal rights would be unenforced. The administration of justice as well as the legal system and the ethical well being of lawyers would be impractical is there was not a rule such as the cab rank rule precluding disclosure of documents enclosed by professional opportunity and the right for legal representation for everyone. The existence of the ‘cab rank rule’ ensures justice, which is the ‘primitive reason’ of law. The cab rank rule is involved with the public interest and the accessibility of lawyers to the public, therefore ensuring that everybody is permitted to legal representation despite their accusations. By ensuring that lawyers’ professional commitment will comprise of legislative fundamental responsibilities, the operation of the legal system would be more effective as this rule eliminates any accusations which declares that the adversary structure should be held accountable for what are identified to be dishonourable and immoral feature of the legal practice. Normal Ethics and Lawyers What is ethical is not impacted by public standards of specific communities (relativism) or by every being (subjectivism). Ethics is a system of manner that at times is similar as the law, and confirms its purposes by providing exposure to rules of conduct. Ethics comprise interest for the wellbeing of others; it allows lawyers to develop understanding to what is proper conduct in a specified circumstance. Legal ethics are a collection of rules regulating the demeanour and the working practices of lawyers. It is about the connection of ethics and the practice of lawyers. The ‘cab rank rule’ specifies that legal ethics differentiates the regulations which are efficiently required on a lawyer (ethical rules) from those which are legally binding (legal rules). It also conveys that legal ethics specifies the professional rules, codes and responsibilities of lawyers by outlining their ethical and legal framework with that of the community and of the client. The rule emphasises that access to legal justice and assistance should be available to all and should not be impeded by the morality of the customary ethical preferences of the skilled, meaning that a lawyer should not refuse a client based on his political, religious and cultural views. Under the ‘cab rank rule’, legal ethics develops an efficient legal system. Lawyers should be bound by professional and legal ethical rules instead of general principles. Lawyers constitute the law, therefore it is evident that their practice should not be administered by prudential considerations and normal rules of ethics should not apply to them. Lawyers should not be constrained by customary ethics but should refer to the Statement of Ethics which emphasises that the management of the law must be impartial and that the ‘cab rank rule’s’ role it to outline the rationale in upholding the rule of law and that the community should be equally served. The law of lawyering is considerable as lawyer’s ethics are institutionally imposed or standardized and can be useful in directing behaviour. As stated by Aristotle “Law is reason, free from passion” this emphasises that the law should not be driven on emotions or normal ethics but by logic, reason and accountability. In conclusion, the ‘cab rank rule’ plays a significant part in the Australian legal system as it is a manifestation of the supremacy of this principle on Australian lawyers' ethics, and it is seen as an institutional culture instead of an official obligation. This principle represents everything that is good and everything that is bad about the legal profession. It plays an imperative role in the effective operation of the legal system as well as the ethical well being of lawyers. Bibliography: Journal Articles * Chris Pearson, Why the cab rank is irrelevant if you can’t afford a taxi (2008) Global and local politics viewed from New Zealand http://scannerclearly.org/blog/2008/06/28/why-the-cab-rank-is-irrelevant-if-you-cant-afford-a-taxi_13/ at 12 September 2009 * John Campbell and John Carruthers, ‘A rank bad rule’ (2008) The Journal Online at 18 September 2009 * Mirko Bagaric and Penny Dimopoulos, ‘Legal Ethics is Normal Ethics: Towards a Coherent System of Legal Ethics’ (2003) 3(2) QUT Law & Justice Journal< http://www.law.qut.edu.au/ljj/editions/v3n2/bagaric_full.jsp> at 12 September 2009. * Richard Mahoney, "The worst client care rule'" (2009) 24 New Zealand Law Journal 42. Books * Gillespie, Alisdair, The English Legal System, (1st ed, 2007) . * Lamb, Ainslie & Littrich, John, Lawyers in Australia, (1st ed, 2007). * Monahan, Geoff , Essential Professional Conduct: Legal Ethics, (1st ed, 2001). * G E Dal Pont, Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility: In Australian and New Zealand (1st ed, 1996). * Monahan, Geoff and Hipsley, Dovid, Essential Professional Conduct: Legal Ethics (2nd ed, 2007). * Parker, Christine and Evans, Adrian, ‘Inside Lawyers’ Ethics’ (2007). * Carter, Gerard, Australian Law for the 21st Century (1st ed, 2004). * Ross, Ysaiah , Ethics in Law: Lawyers Responsibility and Accountability in Australia (4th ed, 2005). * Dovzinas, Costas and Gregorey, Adam, Critical Jurisprudence: The political Philosophy of Justice (2009). Other Sources * American Bar Association, Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of Judicial Conduct (1976) -------------------------------------------- [ 1 ]. Alisdair Gillespie, The English Legal System (1st ed, 2007) 230. [ 2 ]. Chris Pearson, Why the cab rank is irrelevant if you can’t afford a taxi (2008) Global and local politics viewed from New Zealand at 12 September 2009. [ 3 ]. Gerard Carter, Australian Law for the 21st Century (1st ed, 2004) 187. [ 4 ]. Alisdair Gillespie, The English Legal System (1st ed, 2007) 231. [ 5 ]. Mirko Bagaric and Penny Dimopoulos, ‘Legal Ethics is Normal Ethics: Towards a Coherent System of Legal Ethics’ (2003) 3(2) QUT Law & Justice Journal< http://www.law.qut.edu.au/ljj/editions/v3n2/bagaric_full.jsp> at 12 September 2009. [ 6 ]. Alisdair Gillespie, The English Legal System (1st ed, 2007) 243. [ 7 ]. Ainslie Lamb and John Littrich, Lawyers in Australia (1st ed, 2007) 213. [ 8 ]. Mirko Bagaric and Penny Dimopoulos, ‘Legal Ethics is Normal Ethics: Towards a Coherent System of Legal Ethics’ (2003) 3(2) QUT Law & Justice Journal< http://www.law.qut.edu.au/ljj/editions/v3n2/bagaric_full.jsp> at 12 September 2009. [ 9 ]. Geoff Monahan, Essential Professional Conduct: Legal Ethics, (1st ed, 2001) 16. [ 10 ]. Alisdair Gillespie, The English Legal System (1st ed, 2007) 231. [ 11 ]. Chris Pearson, Why the cab rank is irrelevant if you can’t afford a taxi (2008) Global and local politics viewed from New Zealand at 12 September 2009. [ 12 ]. Ainslie Lamb and John Littrich, Lawyers in Australia (1st ed, 2007) 54. [ 13 ]. Mirko Bagaric and Penny Dimopoulos, ‘Legal Ethics is Normal Ethics: Towards a Coherent System of Legal Ethics’ (2003) 3(2) QUT Law & Justice Journal< http://www.law.qut.edu.au/ljj/editions/v3n2/bagaric_full.jsp> at 12 September 2009. [ 14 ]. Mirko Bagaric and Penny Dimopoulos, ‘Legal Ethics is Normal Ethics: Towards a Coherent System of Legal Ethics’ (2003). 3(2) QUT Law & Justice Journal< http://www.law.qut.edu.au/ljj/editions/v3n2/bagaric_full.jsp> at 12 September 2009. [ 15 ]. Alisdair Gillespie, The English Legal System (1st ed, 2007) 232. [ 16 ]. Richard Mahoney, "The worst client care rule'" (2009) 24 New Zealand Law Journal 42, 7,10. [ 17 ]. . Alisdair Gillespie, The English Legal System (1st ed, 2007) 232. [ 18 ]. Gerard Carter, Australian Law for the 21st Century (1st ed, 2004) 185. [ 19 ]. Costas Dovzinas and Adam Gregorey, Critical Jurisprudence: The political Philosophy of Justice (2009) 133. [ 20 ]. Richard Mahoney, "The worst client care rule'" (2009) 24 New Zealand Law Journal 42, 3. [ 21 ]. Deborah L. Rhode, In the Interests of Justice: Reforming the Legal Profession (2000) 144. [ 22 ]. Richard Mahoney, "The worst client care rule'" (2009) 24 New Zealand Law Journal 42, 11,13. [ 23 ]. Geoff Monahan, Essential Professional Conduct: Legal Ethics, (1st ed, 2001) 16. [ 24 ]. Geoff Monahan, Essential Professional Conduct: Legal Ethics, (1st ed, 2001) 16. [ 25 ]. Geoff Monahan and Dovid Hipsley, Essential Professional Conduct: Legal Ethics (2nd ed, 2007) 15. [ 26 ]. John Campbell and John Carruthers, ‘A rank bad rule’ (2008) The Journal Online at 18 September 2009. [ 27 ]. John Campbell and John Carruthers, ‘A rank bad rule’ (2008) The Journal Online at 18 September 2009. [ 28 ]. John Campbell and John Carruthers, ‘A rank bad rule’ (2008) The Journal Online at 18 September 2009. [ 29 ]. G E Dal Pont, Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility: In Australian and New Zealand (1st ed, 1996)4-5. [ 30 ]. G E Dal Pont, Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility: In Australian and New Zealand (1st ed, 1996)4-5. [ 31 ]. Ysaiah Ross, Ethics in Law: Lawyers Responsibility and Accountability in Australia (4th ed, 2005) 9-11. [ 32 ]. Mirko Bagaric and Penny Dimopoulos, ‘Legal Ethics is Normal Ethics: Towards a Coherent System of Legal Ethics’ (2003) 3(2) QUT Law & Justice Journal< http://www.law.qut.edu.au/ljj/editions/v3n2/bagaric_full.jsp> at 12 September 2009. [ 33 ]. Mirko Bagaric and Penny Dimopoulos, ‘Legal Ethics is Normal Ethics: Towards a Coherent System of Legal Ethics’ (2003) 3(2) QUT Law & Justice Journal< http://www.law.qut.edu.au/ljj/editions/v3n2/bagaric_full.jsp> at 12 September 2009. [ 34 ]. G E Dal Pont, Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility: In Australian and New Zealand (1st ed, 1996)4-5. [ 35 ]. G E Dal Pont, Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility: In Australian and New Zealand (1st ed, 1996)4-5. [ 36 ]. Ysaiah Ross, Ethics in Law: Lawyers Responsibility and Accountability in Australia (4th ed, 2005) 9-11. [ 37 ]. Chris Pearson, Why the cab rank is irrelevant if you can’t afford a taxi (2008) Global and local politics viewed from New Zealand at 12 September 2009. [ 38 ]. Ysaiah Ross and Peter MacFarlane, Lawyers’ Responsibility and Accountability: Cases, Problems and Commentary (3rd ed, 2007) 34-35. [ 39 ]. Christine Parker and Adrian Evans, ‘Inside Lawyers’ Ethics’ (2007) Cambridge University Press, 4. [ 40 ]. Mirko Bagaric and Penny Dimopoulos, ‘Legal Ethics is Normal Ethics: Towards a Coherent System of Legal Ethics’ (2003) 3(2) QUT Law & Justice Journal< http://www.law.qut.edu.au/ljj/editions/v3n2/bagaric_full.jsp> at 12 September 2009. [ 41 ]. Christine Parker and Adrian Evans, ‘Inside Lawyers’ Ethics’ (2007) Cambridge University Press, 3-6. [ 42 ]. Ysaiah Ross, Ethics in Law: Lawyers Responsibility and Accountability in Australia (4th ed, 2005) 9-11. [ 43 ]. American Bar Association, Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of Judicial Conduct (1976, 10). [ 44 ]. American Bar Association, Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of Judicial Conduct (1976, 10).