Attorney Client Ethical Decisions 7

ATTORNEY CLIENT ETHICAL DECISIONS 7 Attorney Client Ethical Decisions Julius Armstrong Saint Leo University

A brief discussion of the ethical decision making process is presented for understanding the process an attorney may experience while making a decision. Court appointed defense attorneys will face a series of ethical decision conundrums that will test the cornerstone of the member’s integrity. A brief discussion on ethical decision making, theory associated with decisions, and overall applicability to the decision making of the attorney. An example and discussion of using the normative decision model within the legal team organizational decision is presented, with the goal of adding theory to the overall ethical decision.

Each attorney must continue to make the right choices without sacrificing the integrity of the case or client. Collective decision making requires the legal team to build on internal and external acquisition of knowledge to build on ideas concepts, fundamental change, and progress within the decision-making process. The knowledge acquired can be used to explore new processes, diffuse unwanted results, and apply new knowledge to methodology within the member and legal case. Attorney Client Ethical Decisions Ethical decision making within the legal system is a collaboration of choices that each lawyer must make to maintain the integrity of each court case and client. Many times, defense lawyers have clients that disclose incriminating information regarding case details and other criminal acts.

Each lawyer must decide how to defend members that admit levels of guilt without sacrificing the laws of the land. Ethical decisions have a vital role in understanding the meaning of the legal decisions and the effect decisions have on the client. Lawyers must understand their decisions to defend a client can determine actions regarding the outcome of a legal case. Legal teams must continue to practice making the right decision and not sacrifice their integrity for financial gain. As a result of obtaining information from a client that admits guilt prior to trail, the focus of the following discussion will target the decision process and ideals associated with decision making.

Ethical decision effectiveness is the cornerstone accomplishment for the member in the legal system. The outcome of a specific case is based on the success or failure of the legal team’s goals, objectives, and views presented during the court case. Each lawyer becomes successful by building upon experiences, situational understanding, and traits to produce the best method of decision making for the case. Ethical decisions include characteristics such as: moral stability, effective application of legal skills, confidence, strategic planning, situational based behaviors, integrity, and inspiration. These skill sets are just some of the expected traits a lawyer should have to move a legal team forward to success.

Although there is a plethora of methods a lawyer can use to communicate, demonstrate, and produce success, there is no one set way a lawyer can use systematically, to always produce success. The legal member must adjust as required to each situation to understand the process to move the case forward. Ethical decision making is also based upon the member’s actual concept of integrity and actual implementation of those ideals within the member. Specifically, the performance of the lawyer and each defense case is in conjunction with the attainment of goals, objectives and is influenced by the legal case and criminal charges associated with the case. Followers and outside observers, have a significant role in determining the legal team’s effectiveness.

Use of past cases in addition to recommendations from the experienced legal experts all play a significant role to determine the overall effectiveness of the legal team, and contribution to the success of the organizational team. This process is further described in the lawyer’s overall career or track record of success prior to the defense status discussed within the situational case. Ethical Decision Making Theory Comparison Vroom and Yetton (1973) created a model to identify the situations that determine if a specific type of decision procedure will be effective. This theory was called the normative decision model. The normative decision model is probably the best supported of the contingency theories of effective decision making.

The normative decision model focuses on specific aspects of behavior, it includes meaningful variables, and it identifies aspects of the situation moderating the relationship between behavior and outcomes. Moreover, further explanation of the Vroom-Yetton-Jago model is best described as a “contingency approach to group decision making that is designed specifically to help leaders select the best approach to making decisions. The model identifies different ways a decision can be made by considering the degree of follower participation. It proposes a method for leaders to select the right approach to making a decision in a given set of circumstances,” (Boundless Management, 2015). Based on the model is the following decision procedures: (Yukl, 2013, Table 5-1) • A-I You solve the problem or make the decision yourself, using information available to you at the time. • A-II You obtain the necessary information from your subordinates and then decide the solution to the problem yourself. You may or may not tell your organizational members what the problem is or getting the information from them. The role played by your organization in making the decision is clearly one of providing necessary information to you, rather than generating or evaluating alternative solutions. • C-I You share the problem with the relevant staff individually, getting their ideas and suggestions, without bringing them together as a group. Then you make the decision, which may or may not reflect your client’s influence. • C-II You share the problem with your legal team as a group, obtaining their collective ideas and suggestions. Then you make the decision, which may or may not reflect your legal team’s influence. • G-II You share the problem with your legal team as a group. Together you generate and evaluate alternatives and attempt to reach agreement (consensus) on a solution. Your role is much like that of chairperson. You do not try to influence the group to adopt your preferred decision, and you are willing to accept and implement any decision that has the support of the entire legal group.

According to steps discussed in the normative decision model, the legal team would have the opportunity to go through all the suggested steps within the decision process to determine the best course of action. Although, the decision-making process is one of many decision processes members can use in making the best educated decision, it is up to the legal team to make the correct decision.

The normative decision model is applicable in this case, as it helps determine the result of a decision to continue or discontinue representation for the client. Conclusion The legal member must continue to practice ethical decision making to the overall final actions of the legal team. The right decision is sometimes associated with an uncomfortable position for the legal member. Each case does present its own series of challenges maintaining the legal process while defending a murder suspect. However, legal teams and members, have a plethora of resources to assist in making the best decision for the success of the team.

As laws, social media, and different cultures of jury members change, the legal member should consider the long-term effect of making the wrong decision and compromising a legal case.

References

• Boundless. “Leadership and Decision Making: The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Model.” Boundless Management, 2015. Retrieved September 9, 2017, from https://boundless.com/management/contingency-approach-71/leadership-and-decision-making-the-vroom-yetton-jago-model-
• Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making (Vol. 110). University of Pittsburgh Pre.
• Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th Edition). Pearson Education.
• Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin.
• Thompson, L. (2003). Making the Team: A Guide to Strategies and Structures. Sage Publications.
• Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. Praeger.
• Kidder, R. M. (2005). How Good People Make Tough Choices. HarperOne.
• Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on Moral Development. Harper & Row.
• Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization. Oxford University Press.
• Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.