THE GOOD LAWYER - Philosophical Legal Ethics and the Law Governing Lawyers

Sep 25, 2026

A seminar exploring philosophical debates in legal ethics and how the Model Rules govern lawyers’ professional responsibilities. Students examine the “standard conception” of the good lawyer and its principal defense in the adversary system, then compare rival moralized views by William Simon and David Luban. The course concludes the early portion with Brad Wendel’s reinterpretation, and later surveys key ethics issues—representation decisions, solicitation, conflicts, confidentiality, disclosure duties, counseling, tactical delay, and withdrawal—using relevant Model Rules and multiple philosophical perspectives.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatPDF

Pages4

Reading Time10 min

AccessFree to download

Course Description

Exam and Grading

Required Texts

Recommended Text

Plan for Seminar and Readings

THE GOOD LAWYER: PHILOSOPHICAL LEGAL ETHICS AND THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS Alexander Guerrero Wednesday 4:00 – 5:50pm Furman Hall 310 LAW-LW.12078.001 COURSE DESCRIPTION The Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) is a multiple-choice test, based largely on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, that must be passed prior to admission to the bars of all but four U.S. jurisdictions. A common piece of advice given to those taking the test is to rank the answer choices from most to least ethical—based on one’s personal moral beliefs—and to opt for the second-most ethical option. This advice is typically offered cynically, as a kind of knowing acknowledgment that the Model Rules permit—and perhaps even require—lawyers to wade into murky ethical waters. A similar conclusion is reached by those academic critics of the “standard conception” of the good lawyer, which requires partisan, zealous advocacy for one’s client to the legally allowable limit. These critics call attention to what they see as the moral shortcomings of the legal profession and highlight the way in which the Model Rules contribute to these shortcomings. This course is a philosophical examination of the debate between those who defend the existing norms of the legal profession, as embodied in the Model Rules, and those who reject those norms. The course will begin by presenting and discussing the standard conception as embodied in the Model Rules, and by considering the main defense offered on behalf of the standard conception: the adversary system defense offered by Monroe Freedman and others. We will then consider two of the most prominent rival views, those of William Simon and David Luban, both of whom advocate a considerably more“moralized” view of the good lawyer. We will conclude the first third of the course by considering Brad Wendel’s sophisticated reinterpretation and defense of the standard conception. The last two-thirds of the course will focus on a number of core issues in legal ethics, includingthe decision to represent, solicitation, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, duties to disclose, client counseling, tactical delay, and withdrawal. For each issue, we will discuss the relevant Model Rules, andwill consider a variety of philosophical perspectives on the issue. We will use these discussions to continue to evaluate the broader theoretical concerns raised in the first part of the course. This seminar will be taught from a broadly philosophical perspective, but no background in philosophy is required or assumed. We will read some of the classic works in legal ethics, in addition to reading most of the Model Rules. The course should be adequate preparation for students interested in taking the MPRE. EXAM AND GRADING Your grade will be based on two components: Class Participation: 20% of your grade will be a function of your class participation. This has two parts. •Part One: attending and participating in class: 10% •Part Two: sending three “reading questions” to [alex.guerrero@nyu.edu](alex.guerrero@nyu.edu) by Tuesday at 2pm. These should be questions that came up while you were doing the reading, and I will use some of them in class to help structure discussion. You get 1% of overall course credit for each set of questions you do, up to a maximum of 10% . If they arrive late or are below some relatively low threshold of quality, you will not receive the 1% credit. There are 13 classes after the first class, so you only have to do reading questions for 10 of the 13 weeks. For that reason, I will not accept excuses at the end of the term for noncompletion for a particular week. Exam: There will be a take home exam, taken over the entire exam period. There will be a set of questions distributed at the start of the exam period, with answers due at the end. This exam will be worth 80% of your grade. REQUIRED TEXTS ▪MONROE H. FREEDMAN & ABBE SMITH, UNDERSTANDING LAWYERS’ETHICS (4TH ed. 2010)

FAQs

What is the course’s focus regarding the “good lawyer”?

The course examines the debate between norms embodied in the Model Rules and alternative views that reject those norms, including the standard conception and rival moralized approaches.

How is student performance assessed?

Grades are based on Class Participation (20%) and a take-home Exam (80%). Participation includes attending and participating in class (10%) plus submitting three reading questions by Tuesday at 2pm for 10 of the 13 weeks.

Which legal ethics topics are covered in the later portion of the seminar?

The later weeks address decisions to represent, solicitation, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, duties to disclose, client counseling, tactical delay, and withdrawal, each discussed through Model Rules and philosophical perspectives.

Sep 25, 2026

Uploaded by River Wang