Benchmark – Judges and the Ethical Supervision of Attorneys

.docx

School

Grand Canyon University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

522

Subject

Law

Date

Jun 7, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

8

Uploaded by rodwhite85

Benchmark – Judges and the Ethical Supervision of Attorneys 1 The Supreme Court and Politics Roderick White Grand Canyon University JUS-522 Dr. Carlino February 6th, 2024
Benchmark – Judges and the Ethical Supervision of Attorneys 2 Introduction There is more to the question of whether judges should supervise attorneys than just the inconsequential concerns about the judiciary's effectiveness and competency in relation to other supervisors. The legal community has long argued that the judicial branch should have the authority to supervise attorneys as a safeguard against outside bar rules. This argument has expeditiously bordered on the discussion of self-regulation as a constitutional analysis pertaining to jurisdictional regulation of attorneys and the legal separation of powers, as well as the doubts regarding the efficacy of self-regulation as a violation of judicial principles (Wald, 2011). Undoubtedly, however, the legal profession has actively defended the judiciary's regulation of lawyers—not because of loyalty or respect for the judges, but rather because challenging judicial rules would undermine self-regulation by opening the door for outside laws to govern the practice of law (Wald, 2011). Magistrates oversee attorneys in a variety of capacities. The majority of jurisdictions have a thorough disciplinary system that is based on professional and ethical behavior norms.
Benchmark – Judges and the Ethical Supervision of Attorneys 3 This system can be arranged by the state's highest court, and judges have management authority over the rules when it comes to disciplining attorneys. Additionally, judges have the authority to impose sanctions on attorneys through the contempt power and to exercise the culpability controls while making decisions regarding malpractice lawsuits. However, one of the unfavorable aspects of the inherent powers doctrine is that, in addition to allowing supervisors to fire attorneys, it also gives judges the authority to declare laws governing attorneys' conduct to be unconstitutional, giving the judiciary the ability to override jurisdictive controls (Harrington, 2014). The actions of the courts and individual judges are imbued with a soul by ethical principles, which embody the fundamental ideals of the judiciary. When an activity is performed with the objective of achieving the common good, it is called ethics. Judges have legal and constitutional duties, embodied in ethical principles that also specify how they should be done. Furthermore, the principles provide the benchmarks for judges' professional conduct, delineate the essential characteristics of a professional judge, elucidate societal laws on the administration of justice through attorneys, and uphold the trust of judges who render decisions in specific circumstances. Numerous techniques for upholding judicial ethics have been discovered throughout the supervision of judicial ethics in US courts. Judges themselves must first understand and accept the principles of judicial ethics.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help