For decades, those who have chosen to enter the noble field of law have been subject to guidelines governing how legal professionals are expected to behave. The history of those guidelines is actually quite interesting. If traced back as far as possible, the rules that govern moral and ethical expectations of lawyers, judges, and other legal professionals were derived from ethical theory articulated by some of the greatest minds of the nineteenth century. One such publication was David Hoffman 's A Course of Legal Study (2d ed. 1836).1 Hoffman’s study covers for distinct articles, the very first of which is titled “Moral and Political Philosophy.” Hoffman goes on to discuss relevant elementary and constitutional principles, real rights and …show more content…
Its publication marked a turning point in the history of the legal profession.1
“In America, where the stability of Courts and of all departments of government rests upon the approval of the people, it is peculiarly essential that the system for establishing and dispensing Justice be developed to a high point of efficiency and so maintained that the public shall have absolute confidence in the integrity and impartiality of its administration. The future of the Republic, to a great extent, depends upon our maintenance of Justice pure and unsullied. It cannot be so maintained unless the conduct and the motives of the members of our profession are such as to merit the approval of all just men.”4
(Emphasis added.) This excerpt taken from the original Canons is the preamble, the first thing read, and a summary describing the purpose of the rules. Since the introduction of the Canons, over the years the American Bar Association has made changes to the rules. On August 12, 1969 the Canons of Professional Ethics was formally changed and adopted by the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association under the new title: Model Code of Professional Responsibility.1 In 1977 the Commission on Evaluation of Professional Standards was created by the Association and tasked
The Florida Bar's Board of Governors concurred, and after lengthy consideration, the Florida Supreme Court entered its order adopting the rules, effective 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 1987, in place of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In this chapter, the question of if judicial independence is being undermined is asked. Attacks upon activist judges is a recurring theme in the United States. Various judges are attacked across the state for the decisions they make. In an adversary system, a judge’s decision often fails to find favor with the losing party. These losing parties normally label the judge as and “activist”. This means that the judge had made an unpopular opinion. There has been many examples of judges being subject to the attacks such as when Justice Penny White was voted off the bench because she voted in a death penalty case to grant the defendant more leeway. These attacks on judges can have a harsh impact on the judicial independence. The American Judicature
In the novel, Just Mercy, by Bryan Stevenson, the author depicts his experiences with cases that dealt with racial inequality and unfair convictions. The most prominent case in the novel is about a man named Walter McMillian who was unjustly convicted of a murder charge and sentenced to death row. Throughout the story, it is apparent that McMillian’s case was more complicated than just racial profiling because it was entangled with deception. The unlawful behavior executed by law officials: judges, lawyers, police officers, to indict Walter McMillian counteracts the basis of the system of which judicial officials should abide by. To elaborate, judicial officials should be protecting the public by representing them with the use of the law. However, they occasionally ignore or withhold evidence that would alter an outcome that they did not support. Despite the fact that judicial officers incriminate citizens through their own racial biases such as racial profiling to benefit themselves in some aspect, the pressure derived from society is another factor that ultimately plays a significant role in the outcome or punishment of convicted criminals.
Courts play a vital role in the Criminal Justice System in America, however; understanding how the courts work and function is essential. Even the general public should have a basic knowledge regarding the similarities and differences of the jurisdiction and structure of our dual court system – federal and state. In addition, there are ethical and diversity issues that can be experienced by each of the courts that could possibly impact the courts’ functioning.
In Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Cannon, Peter Cannon, an attorney, representing a client in a bankruptcy proceeding, was charged by Iowa’s Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board for plagiarizing a large portion of his submitted brief from a published article. When questioned by the judge regarding unusually “high quality” of his brief, Cannon responded that he was solely responsible for the briefs and that the briefs “relied heavily” upon an article entitled Why Professionals Must Be Interested in Disinterestedness Under the Bankruptcy Code.” The court affirmed the Board’s decision that Cannon’s sanction of a public reprimand was appropriate. The court reasoned that, inter alia, Cannon had charged his client unreasonable
Spaeth (1991) speak about the basis in which the Supreme Court was built upon and its importance, and how the power was divided within the government from the Constitution’s creators. In their article “Judicial power and authority,” Edward Conrad Smith and Harold J. Spaeth (1991) speak about the basis in which the Supreme Court was built upon and its importance, and how the power was divided within the government from the Constitution’s creators. This supports the realization that Presidents do not get away with everything, and that the Supreme Court will strike down anybody and
The Great Chief Justice: John Marshall and the Rule of Law by Charles F. Hobson examines the judicial career of John Marshall, as well as the legal culture that helped to shape his political beliefs and his major constitutional opinions. The author sources much of his information from the formal opinions that Marshall issued during his judicial career. From these writings, Hobson presents Marshall 's views on law and government and provides explanations for what in Marshall 's life influenced those beliefs.
This paper identifies, discusses and analyzes the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. This paper addresses the historical context and the public need for the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 (the “Act”). The paper then describes the major components of the Act and the policy issues the Act attempted to address at the time of its enactment. Finally, this paper evaluates the Act’s impact on the American justice system over the past almost two and a half centuries. This is an unbiased paper written with the sole intent to research and report on the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789.
Appointed to the Supreme Court two hundred years ago as a final act of a defeated President, Marshall is arguably the most significant judge in American history--yet only now is he getting the scholarly recognition he so richly deserves. For instance, Herbert A. Johnson, the founding editor of the invaluable Papers of John Marshall, Charles F. Hobson, his successor, and Jean Edward Smith have written excellent biographies of Marshall. These works tend toward the massive, as does G. Edward White 's important study of the last twenty years of the Marshall Court. One could list many specific examinations of aspects of Marshall 's years on the bench, all highlighting the renewed interest in the Chief Justice. R. Kent Newmyer 's new biography reminds us why John Marshall still matters.
Introduction The highest federal court in the United States is The Supreme Court. The chief justices that serve on this court are faced with making the most significant decisions that influence the criminal justice system. Chief Justice Earl Warren and Chief Justice William Rehnquist were both outstanding examples of how the Supreme Court significantly shaped the American justices’ system and criminal producers. This essay will compare and contrast the approaches to criminal procedure by the U.S. Supreme Court under both Chief Justices Earl Warren and William Rehnquist.
During the reading of this chapter, I now have a better understanding of our court system and how it plays a significant role in our society. Although the United States court system is rather complex and also needs a reform due to the bias views and the unfair treatment among minorities, without our court system it would be extremely difficult to enforce laws.
The criminal justice system involve many elements. Some of the major components are the men and women who maintain these as Police Officers, Lawyers, Corrections Officers, and the Judges. For the purpose of this paper, I will be focusing more on Judges. Judges sit upon the bench of the courts and help to ensure that fairness is present during trials. A judge must also enforce court procedures and decide issues of law. Along with these proceedings a judge will have to use professional discretion, but when does the use of professional discretion cross ethical boundaries? During this paper we shall also address this question.
A fair and independent court system is essential to the administration of justice in a democratic society. Exemplary conduct by court employees inspires public confidence and trust in the courts, and conveys the values of impartiality, equity, and fairness that bring integrity to the court’s work. Further, court employees are expected to adhere to a high standard of ethical behavior. To advance these values and to achieve justice we believe certain ethical principles should govern all that we
The Court should strive to work out a constitutional equilibrium where each branch of government cannot dominate each other, an equilibrium where each branch in the exercise of its distinct power should be left alone yet bereft of a license to abuse… The call for that quality of rare disinterestedness should counsel us to resist the temptation of unduly inflating judicial power and deflating the executive and legislative powers.
In recent years, many people in the United States have acquired an oddly tilted concept of how the judicial branch of government should function. Modern consensus postulates that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution, and that its judgments cannot be challenged or changed except through its own decision (Vieira). Curiously, however, this idea of giving the power of final constitutional interpretation to the judiciary—known in law as “judicial supremacy”—finds no basis in the text of the Constitution itself or in historical opinion. This doctrine is a modern construction, and it poses an unhappily real threat to individual liberties in America. The people of our nation deserve a judiciary that is just in its