The Client-Lawyer Relationship
American jurisprudence requires that lawyers hold ethical and moral obligations to protect a conglomeration of interests; an attorney’s liberty, professional record; their firm, career, and clients; alongside the integrity of the U.S. legal system, all elements of upholding professional morality rely on a lawyer’s ability to adhere to the established standard, (Lewinbuk, K.P., p. 149). The American Bar Association (ABA) developed and continues to enforce this standard using a set of criteria known as the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) that the lawyer is personally responsible for upholding, (Lewinbuk, K.P., p. 120). The MRPC includes enumerated obligations and responsibilities expected from the jurist; any violations of these duties are officially recognized to be professional misconduct, (ABA; MRPC, Rule 8.4). Many American courts now adhere to this standard, as past rulings have highlighted the need for a nontheistic objective moral reference; yet the MRPC does not inhibit attorneys from utilizing their own objective worldview correlative to its context. One of the most important moral obligations is found in the MRPC’s first chapter; displaying criteria for the preservation of the integrity of the client-attorney relationship, as the entire practice of law is built upon this foundational principle. This rule implements a system of checks and balances that ensures a valid application of ethics in a lawyer’s conduct with their client.
Rule 1.1 On Competence, the Model Rules for Professional Conduct’s (MRPC) Rule 1.1 asserts equality among attorneys; the American Bar Association that “[a] newly admitted lawyer can be as competent as a practitioner with long experience,” expounding that “a lawyer need not necessarily have special training or prior experience to handle legal problems of a type with which the lawyer is unfamiliar, (ABA, p. 12). This comes down to the discretion of the attorney, as “even in an emergency, assistance should be limited to that reasonably necessary,” (ABA, p. 12). Competence includes an “inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem, and use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners,” (ABA, p. 12). Multiple lawyers consulting a client must also consult each other; namely “allocations of responsibility in a matter pending before a tribunal,” that bring forth additional obligations beyond the scope of this essay, (ABA, p. 13). The MRPC also declares that each lawyer bears personal responsibility “to maintain the requisite knowledge and skill,” denoting the requisite of maintaining an established professional competence, specifically pertaining to substantial changes and relevant updates occurring in both policy and law, (ABA, p. 13). The American Bar Association (ABA) requires continued legal training, stating that “[a]ll attorneys practicing in New York State are required to complete continuing legal education (CLE) credits,” (NYCBar). New York’s newly admitted attorneys must attain 16 CLE credit hours per year for the first two years; while experienced lawyers must attain 24 CLE credit hours annually; both durations of MCLE hold a designated allocation for ethics and professionalism, highlighting its importance, (ABA). Moreover, is no nationally established ABA standard universally applicable to all states; California requires 25 CLE credit hours of continuing legal education every three years; by comparison nearly three times less than New York’s annual requisites. Of Competence, Jesus defined His own presence as Light, replying; “[y]ou will have the light shining with you for only a little while longer. While you still have me, walk in the light, so that the darkness doesn’t overtake you. For when you walk in the dark you have no idea where you’re going. So believe and cling to the light while I am with you so that you will become children of light,” (John 12:35; TPT, p. 639). This passage reminds us that no matter how competent lawyers may be; there exists a superior omnipotent God responsible for objective fundamental principles, including law. An attorney’s knowledge of Biblical moral truth invokes an impenetrable shield of confidence when it comes to legal discernment; attorneys must act as bearers of God’s Light through all forms of arbitration, mediation, and negotiation; while also being able to navigate unframiliar encounters in realtime during trial. The Lord will guide us to further our own passions by renouncing self-interest and adhering to collective Kingdom contribution, under the authority of each citizen’s individual divine relationship with his Creator. Lawyers have a duty to declare themselves as children of light among the darkness of the case at hand. God’s divine ordinances cannot be broken, as it has been decreed by the Lord since His inception of the Earth; the origin of law began before man and his nations, therefore its longevity relies on correlation with divine ordinance as found in Scripture.
Rule 1.4 On communication, the MRPC’s Rule 1.4 denotes that Attorneys must “promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent,” (ABA, Rule 1.4(a)1, p. 19). This includes keeping the client reasonably informed about all matters; should a lawyer neglect these duties they can face disciplinary action. Professional legal communication includes the duty to “consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law,” (ABA, Rule 1.4(a)1 p. 19). An attorney must present enough information to the client, that it enables them to make an informed decision whether to gain representation, (ABA; Rule 1.4(b), p.19). Of Communication, God declares in Genesis that “[i]f they have begun this as one people sharing a common language, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them,” (Gen 11:6b; TPT, Loc. 1731). Although this may seem divisive at first glance, it resolves to humility before the magnitude of God’s power; He intended for us to face conflict to the point of prescribing us to be divided where He decreed “Come, let use go down and confuse their language and prevent them from understanding each other,” (Gen 11:7; TPT, Loc. 1731). Worldly division is part of His plan of unification, for without conflict, Attorneys would lack humility, catering to their own biases and personal reservations; continuously observing God’s continuous unwavering love for all his children remains representative of what it means to ‘be more like Jesus’ in the context of law. Justice is blind to bias, as declared by His Holy Spirit; therefore in order to gain God’s protection within the context of the legal arena Lawyers must abide by an objective moral code, and not their own depiction of equity.
Rule 1.5 The American Bar Association has broadened the attorney’s scope of fees, yet implemented other requirements like lowered costs and self-auditing; the MRPC’s Rule 1.5’s “benchmark for triggering judicial review of fees has been lowered and its scope broadened; now “[r]ule 1.5 requires a lawyer’s fee [to] be ‘reasonable,’ thereby eliminating the previous requirement to show a fee is ‘clearly excessive’ in order to warrant disciplinary action,” (Lewinbuk, K.P., p. 121). The scope of the fees must be demonstrated to the client, “preferably in writing,” to ensure client awareness and consent of the scope of reasonable fees and charges surrounding the case, (ABA; Rule 15(b) p. 22). A Lawyer can require and accept “advance payment of a fee,” but is legally “obliged to return any unearned portion,” (ABA; Rule 1.6, p. 24). The duty of a lawyer is synonymous with the obligations held by Christians; bear the Light of the law; the same divine honor as expected in those that bear the cross. As the Lord reminds attorneys in Romans, stealing is prohibited under the ordinance of God; excessive unenumerated fees equate to thievery. Lawyers must implement these objective principles into their legal practice; treating their clients with the same level of confidentiality, confidence, and honesty as if it were our own family. His Holy Spirit writes “[f]or the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,’ and every other commandment can be summed up in these words: ‘Love and value others the same way you love and value yourself,” (Romans 13:9; TPT, p. 946).
Rule 1.6 On Confidentiality, the Client-Lawyer relationship must adhere to the MRPC’s Rule 1.6 that hereby states “[a] lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent,” (ABA, p. 25). Other significant factors denoted within the MRPC include the standardized regulation of legal fees, and the prevention of disclosure, though certain exceptions may apply (Lewinbuk, K.P., p. 149). These ambiguous exceptions include disclosure to prevent “reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm,” (ABA; Rule 1.6(b)1, p. 25). Katerina P. Lewinbuk; professor at South Texas College of Law; depicts the vitality of an attorney maintaining the MRPC, writing that “[t]he American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rules) require devotion to the client despite the consequences of maintaining those secrets,” (Lewinbuk, K.P., p. 159). Per Rule 1.6 a lawyer must extend their professional moral conduct to the realm of social media; this does not stop attorneys from being able to post, yet invokes scrutiny over the content; its position; and the detail of information surrounding cases that an attorney may encounter in the field, (Lewinbuk, K.P., pp. 167, 168). Of Covenant, the Lord reminds us of his desire to co-labor with us, as seen with Adam. In Genesis, God created the animals before He created people, yet waited until after He made man to name them; moreover, God anointed us with dominion over all other forms of life, (Gen 1:20; Gen 2:7; Gen 2:19; TPT). The Lord’s covenant remains evident in client confidentiality, alongside adherence to its principles. Attorneys must remember God’s burning desire to partner with Him on every dispute resolution, case, and in every courtroom.
Rules 1.7; 1.8; 1.9 The MRPC’s solutions for attorneys encountering conflict of interests reside in Rules 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9; whereby stating lawyers, “shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest,” (ABA; Rule 1.7(b), p. 33). This is an essential construct of the MRPC, as a lawyer must ensure that they can fully represent a client without conflict; providing anything less than full representation would be a violation of the ABA’s MRPC, and the attorney would be charged with professional misconduct. Further, a conflict of interest can emerge if “the representation of one client [is] directly adverse to another client;” should this occur it is the duty of the attorney to address this in a professional responsible manner, utilizing full disclosure, and divulge the details surrounding the conflict on interest to the client. After the attorney presents the totality of information surrounding the conflict of interest to the client, a decision must be made whether to proceed. The client’s decision to proceed requires the signing of a waiver in accordance with the MRPC, (Lewinbuk, K.P, p. 179). These expectations and duties to avoid conflicts of interest extend to former clients, whose rulings “materially adverse to the interests” of a prospective client (ABA; Rule 1.9, p. 56). In contrast, a lawyer cannot take on a case identical to one previously represented by another firm; in order to prevent res judicata, or claim preclusion; and collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, (ABA; Rule 1.9, p. 56). Lawyers are responsible for enforcing that the utilization of the courts be rooted in moral conduct, and prepared for conflicts of interest as they are natural occurrences the attorney will encounter in the field of law. Attorneys must gain client consent before reaching out to another agency for assistance should there exist a conflict of interest; lawyers must be careful that the avoidance of one conflict of interest does not lead to further unforeseen professional misconduct, (ABA, p. 12). A lawyer’s obligation is directly linked to their personal relationship with their creator, alongside the faith they hold that their actions are contributory to something greater; striving to build the Kingdom of God for posterity, knowing firsthand of true morality. His Holy Spirit reminds attorneys to remain resilient during legal conflict; “[d]on’t be pulled in different directions or [be] worried about a thing. Be saturated in prayer throughout each day, offering your faith-filled requests before God with overflowing gratitude,” (Philippians 4:6; TPT, p. 1202). If we hold the mind of Christ in the context of the court, we can implement the image of God within the American justice system. The Lord’s image relies not on divine theocracy but on holding an objective moral reference. The Bible has been proven to be the authoritative ground for morality for over two millenniums, and continues to be the origin of keeping level-headed in every aspect of law; from alternative dispute resolutions to the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
Lawyers are obligated to preserve moral conduct within their profession to actualize a projection of right and wrong; diffusing justice throughout generational polity. There exists an inherent safeguard within all Christian jurists, that when invoked exudes His Holy Spirit within every case God’s objective doctrine can be applied. Attorneys who place objective reference over their moral conduct are unlikely to consciously violate any of the principles found in the enumerated obligations of the American Bar Association’s MRPC. God reminds jurists that “I’ve used the familiar terms of a ‘servant’ and a ‘master’ to compensate for your weakness to understand. For just as you surrendered your bodies and souls to impurity and lawlessness, which only brought more lawlessness into your lives, so now surrender yourselves as servants of righteousness, which brings you deeper into true holiness. For when you were bound as servants to sin, you lived your lives free from any obligation to righteousness,” (Romans 6:19, 20; TPT, p. 914). When a lawyer gives themselves fully to God, they can place their opinions on the matter aside, allowing blind justice to occur. While we exist in a temporal fallen state, our time on this planet requires an objective Light to discern truth within the darkness of the courts. Confidence in the field of law lies greatly in falling reliant on the will of God, and allowing Him to utilize the attorney to work justice independent of their own fallen reservations on the mind. Entering the mind of God truly allows lawyers to synchronize their perspective with the professional expectations of the legal field and the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
Bibliography
ABA. (Accessed on October 25th, 2023). American Bar Association. Rule 8.4: Misconduct. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_8_4_misconduct/ ABA. (2023). Responsibility, American Bar Association Center for Professional. Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 2023 Edition. American Bar Association. Kindle Edition. Lewinbuk, K. P. (2017). Connecting Ethics and Practice: A Lawyer's Guide to Professional Responsibility (Aspen Coursebook Series). Wolters Kluwer. Kindle Edition. NYCBar. (Accessed on October 26th, 2023). MCLE Requirements | Member & Career Services | NYC Bar. https://www.nycbar.org/member-and-career-services/cle-and-events/cle/mcle-requirements. Simmons, B. et al. (2020) The Passion Translation New Testament Masterpiece Edition (2020 edition): with Psalms, Proverbs and Song of Songs (The Illustrated Passion Translation) (The Passion Translation (TPT). BroadStreet Publishing Group LLC. Kindle Edition. Simmons, Brian. (2020) Genesis 2020 edition: Firstfruits (The Passion Translation). BroadStreet Publishing Group LLC. Kindle Edition.