Mandating Lawyer Reporting of their Peers' Misconduct: Should Australia Follow Suit?

Legal Ethics 17 (1):23-54 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Alerting regulatory and professional bodies to lawyer misconduct has traditionally been a predominantly reactionary process, heavily reliant upon client complaint. It cannot be assumed, however, that client complaint will unearth all forms of lawyer misconduct. Accordingly, there is a legitimate question over whether lawyers should, as members of a profession, perform a self-policing function in reporting their peers' misconduct to the relevant body. The point assumes especial significance in the Australian context because Australia is unique, vis-à-vis comparable common law jurisdictions, in not imposing any general professional obligation to report. This article addresses the core issues to be addressed in the debate surrounding whether or not Australian regulators ought to follow the lead of those other jurisdictions

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,347

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

How to blow the whistle and still have a career afterwards.C. K. Gunsalus - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1):51-64.
Australian Lawyers as Public Citizens.Lillian Corbin - 2013 - Legal Ethics 16 (1):57-72.
Misconduct in science and the German law.Stefanic Stegemann-Bochl - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):57-62.
Is it Morally Wrong to Defend Unjust Causes as a Lawyer?Eduardo Rivera-López - 2014 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 32 (2):177-189.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-07-26

Downloads
2 (#1,808,860)

6 months
1 (#1,478,500)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references