Disregard Of The Lawyer-Statesman Model

Lawyers have been traditionally been looked at a zealous money seeking individuals with only self interest in mind. This outlook has been created by attorneys fighting for their best interest of their cooperation that are paying them large amounts of money. This leads to attorneys choosing to protect their client even against greater public interest. Decisions to defend larger corporations against the public interest when defending the morally questionable side has given lawyers a negative outlook. Though it is important for the public to accept that there may be a degree of immorality when defending any party in legal cases. This is not only limited to cases involving large corporations, but may be more pertinent in them. The acceptance of this immorality does not constitute the complete disregard of the lawyer-statesman ideal.
With the lawyer-statesman idea being that a lawyer defends the rights of the greater public with following the rules set forth isn’t completely disregarded in tort cases against large corporations. Thought the protection of the large corporation may have disregard for the lawyer-statesman ideals the protection of the plaintive does not. With the protection of the
For example the attorney fighting for Mc Donald’s in “The Case of The Scalded Grandmother”1 would have the attorney accepting a degree of immorality if Mc Donald’s interest were fundamentally immoral. It would have been the lawyer’s duty to defend to the best of his abilities the interest of the company that had hired them. Accepting that portions of law are fundamentally immoral is need to allow both parties to fight for their interest equally. The practice of a corporation using lawyers to change the legal system in the pursuit of greater profits is the core to the immortality faced by the corporate