Abstract

According to the standard view in legal ethics, hyper-zealous advocacy and the principle of non-accountability could be justified by relating to the adversary system argument. Lawyers play a special role in a system that serves social goals, for the universal acceptance among practitioners. Nevertheless, could adversary system argument justify the special a-moral role? The article focuses on the institutional excuse end special role obligations on those who inhabit the robe, especially from Luban’s critical perspective, who claims the adversarial system could receive only a pragmatic justification and can only offer weak and slight prima facie justifications.