![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
A classic avenue that victims can take to hold a corporation to account and obtain redress for the harms they have suffered is civil litigation. In the past decades, such attempts have been pursued against corporations in the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the asbestos industry or industries working with asbestos and, more recently, the extractive industries. However, it is notoriously difficult for victims whose rights have been violated by corporations to obtain effective redress in civil procedures. A rich body of burgeoning scholarly literature and policy documents has addressed the extent to which systematic and institutional factors are obstacles to victims seeking justice for corporate misconduct. In this article, we will not focus on these systemic and institutional factors but on the role of corporate defence lawyers as their functioning also impacts the capacity of victims of corporate wrongdoing to effectuate their rights. We will address the question of what can be expected from a legal-ethical point of view from corporate defence lawyers advising and representing their corporate clients in large-scale civil liability cases. As a partial answer, we will develop a critique of amoral lawyering as a working philosophy in this context. In addition, we will touch upon the feasibility of a possible alternative.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful for the valuable comments of two anonymous reviewers. An earlier version of this article was presented at a seminar organised by the Amsterdam Centre for Transformative Private Law and at an expert meeting on Legal Professionalism for Global Challenges organised by the Utrecht University Centre for Global Challenges. The authors are indebted to the participants of these events for their constructive comments. Thanks also goes to Prof. Cees van Dam for his valuable suggestions and comments on an earlier draft of this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Nikos Passas, ‘Lawful but Awful: Legal Corporate Crimes’ (2005) 34 The Journal of Socio-Economics 771, 771–86; Nikos Passas and Neva Goodwin (eds), It’s Legal but it Ain’t Right: Harmful Social Consequences of Legal Industries (University of Michigan Press 2004); Nicholas Freudenberg, Lethal but Legal: Corporations, Consumption, and Protecting Public Health (Oxford University Press 2014).
2 Lynn Mather, ‘Theorizing about Trial Courts: Lawyers, Policymaking, and Tobacco Litigation’ (1998) 23 Law & Social Inquiry 897; Camille Cameron, ‘Hired Guns and Smoking Guns: McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia Ltd’ (2002) 25 University of New South Wales Law Journal 768 (case note); Sharon Milberger, Ronald M Davis et al, ‘Tobacco Manufacturers’ Defence against Plaintiffs’ Claims of Cancer Causation: Throwing Mud at the Wall and Hoping Some of it Will Stick’ (2006) 15 Tobacco Control iv17; Nora Freeman Engstrom and Robert L Rabin, ‘Pursuing Public Health through Litigation: Lessons from Tobacco and Opioids’ (2021) 73 Stanford Law Review 285.
3 Jeanne Lenzer, ‘Secret Report Surfaces Showing that Pfizer Was at Fault in Nigerian Drug Tests’ (2006) 332 BMJ 1233; Alexander Dorozynski, ‘Two Victims of Diethylstilbestrol Win Lawsuit’ (2002) BMJ 324, 1354.
4 Robert Frank Ruers, Macht en Tegenmacht in de Nederlandse Asbestregulering (Boom Juridisch 2012); Andrea Boggio, Compensating Asbestos Victims: Law and the Dark Side of Industrialization (Routledge 2013); Lester Brickman, ‘Ethical Issues in Asbestos Litigation’ (2015) 33 Hofstra Law Review 834.
5 Amy Salyzyn and Penelope C Simons, ‘Professional Responsibility and the Defence of Extractive Corporations in Transnational Human Rights and Environmental Litigation in Canadian Courts’ (2021) 24(1) Legal Ethics 24.
6 For discussions of these barriers in the context of human rights violations by European companies, see Juan Jose Álvarez Rubio and Katerina Yiannibas, Human Rights in Business: Removal of Barriers to Access to Justice in the European Union (Routledge 2017); Jonas Grimheden, ‘Litigation in Response to Corporate Human Rights Abuses: The European Union and Its Member States’ (2018) 50 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 244; Axel Marx, Claire Bright et al, ‘Corporate Accountability Mechanisms in EU Member States for Human Rights Abuses in Third Countries’ (2019) European Yearbook of Human Rights.
7 For a general discussion of professionalism and the distinction between public and private professionals, see the contribution of Claassen (2023) elsewhere in this special issue.
8 Salyzyn and Simons (n 5) 35.
9 Lynn Mather and Leslie C Levin, ‘Why Context Matters’ in Lynn Mather and Leslie C Levin (eds), Lawyers in Practice: Ethical Decision Making in Context (Chicago University Press 2012).
10 The European Union Agency for Human Rights (2020, 29) identified three main categories of victims of human rights violations by corporations: consumers, the local population, and workers. See the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2020), ‘Business and Human Rights: Access to Remedy’ <https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2020/business-human-rights-remedies> accessed 17 February 2023.
11 Passas and Goodwin (n 1) 4-7.
12 See the ‘legislative letter’ of the Dutch Authority Financial Markets (28 March 2022) 10–11 <https://www.eerstekamer.nl/nonav/overig/20220414/wetgevingsbrief_afm_2022/document> accessed 17 February 2023.
13 Marc Galanter, ‘Planet of the Apes: Reflections on the Scale of Law and its Users’ (2006) 53 Buffalow Law Review 1369.
14 For a general discussion of the representation of lawyers in popular culture, see Carrie Menkel-Meadow, ‘Can They Do That? Legal Ethics in Popular Culture: Of Character and Acts’ (2001) 48 University of California Law Review 1305.
15 Tyler W Hill, ‘Financing the Class: Strengthening the Class Action through Third-party Investment’ (2015) 125(2) Yale Law Journal 484.
16 ibid.
17 Robert H Klonoff, ‘The Decline of Class Actions’ (2013) 90 Washington University Law Review 972; Robert H Klonoff, ‘Class Actions Part II: A Respite from the Decline’ (2017) 92 New York University Law Review 971.
18 AT&T Mobility LLC v Concepcion [2011] 31 S. Ct. 1740; Brian T Fitzpatrick, ‘The End of Class Actions?’ (2015) 57 Arizona Law Review 161; Klonoff 2013; 2017 (n 17).
19 BEUC, Proposal for a Directive on Representative Actions (BEUC Position Paper BEUC-X-2018-094, 2018).
20 Ianika Tzankova, ‘Wetsvoorstel Collectieve Schadevergoedingsactie: Een Oplossing Voor Welk Probleem Ook Alweer?’ (2017) 4 Tijdschrift voor Vergoeding Personenschade 107; Branda M Katan, ‘Toetsing van Commerciële Procesfinanciering: Naar een Evenwichtig Stelsel’ (2021) 33 Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Burgerlijk Recht 269; Willem H van Boom and Jan L Luiten, ‘Procesfinanciering door Derden’ (2015) 5 Rechtsgeleerd Magazijn Themis 188; The Dutch Act on the Settlement of Mass Claims in Collective Action (WAMCA), introduced in 2020, does seem to offer opportunities for the wider use of third-party funding; see CE Santman and RJ Philips, ‘De Financiering van Collectieve Schadevergoedingsacties onder de WAMCA: Een Inventarisatie van Onzekerheden en Mogelijkheden vanuit het Perspectief van een Procesfinancier’ (2021) 7/8 Maandblad voor Vermogensrecht 275.
21 Brickman (n 4) 835.
22 Robert W Gordon, ‘Introduction to Symposium on the Corporate Law Firm’ (1985) 37 Stanford Law Review 271, 271.
23 César S Arjona, ‘Amorality Explained: Analysing the Reasons that Explain the Standard Conception of Legal Ethics’ (2013) 4 Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics 51, 53; W Bradley Wendel, Lawyers and Fidelity to Law (Princeton University Press 2010) 30; William H Simon, The Practice of Justice: A Theory of Lawyer’s Ethics (Harvard University Press 1998) 100.
24 Richard Moorhead and Victoria Hinchley, ‘Professional Minimalism? The Ethical Consciousness of Commercial Lawyers’ (2015) 42(3) Journal of Law and Society 387.
25 ibid 409; see also Steven Vaughan and Emma Oakley, ‘‘Gorilla Exceptions’ and the Ethically Apathetic Corporate Lawyer’ (2016) 19(1) Legal Ethics 50, 73.
26 Christine Parker, ‘A Critical Morality for Lawyers: Four Approaches to Lawyers’ Ethics’ (2004) 30 Monash University Law Review 49, 57–60.
27 Stephen L Pepper, ‘The Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role: A Defense, a Problem, and Some Possibilities’ (1986) 11 American Bar Foundation Research Journal 613, 626.
28 For instance, rule 2.2. of the Code of Conduct 2018 of the Netherlands Bar reads as follows: ‘The interest of the client, and no other interest, will determine the way in which the advocate handles his cases.’
29 Wendel 44 (n 23).
30 Pepper (n 27) 630–32; see also Melissa Mortazavi, ‘The Cost of Avoidance: Pluralism, Neutrality, and the Foundation of Modern Legal Ethics’ (2017) 42 Florida State University Law Review 151.
31 Stephen L Pepper, ‘Integrating Morality and Law in Legal Practice: A Reply to Professor Simon’ (2010) 23 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 1011, 1019.
32 Donald Nicolson and Julian Webb, Professional Legal Ethics: Critical Interrogations (Oxford University Press 1999).
33 Richard Wasserstrom, ‘Lawyers as Professionals: Some Moral Issues’ (1975) 5 Human Rights 1, 6.
34 Pepper (n 27) 615–19.
35 The term ‘ethical division of labour’ was coined by Thomas Nagel, see Thomas Nagel, ‘Ruthlessness in Public Life’ in S Hampshire (ed), Public and Private Morality (Cambridge University Press 1978) 85.
36 Frans Jacobs, ‘Reasonable Partiality in Professional Ethics: The Moral Division of Labour’ (2005) 8 Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 141.
37 Lon L Fuller, ‘The Principles of Social Order’ in Kenneth L. Winston (ed), Selected Essays of Lon L Fuller (Duke University Press 1981); Lon L Fuller, The Adversary System: Talks on American Law (Vintage Books 1961).
38 Preamble of the Dutch Code of Conduct for Lawyers (2018).
39 Linn M LoPucki and Walter O Weyrauch, ‘A Theory of Legal Strategy’ (2009) 49 Duke Law Journal 1405, 1410; See for some exceptions e.g.: Richard Lewis, ‘Tort Tactics: An Empirical Study of Personal Injury Litigation Strategies’ (2017) 37 Legal Studies 162; Ramses Delafontaine, Historians as Expert Judicial Witnesses in Tabacco Litigation: A Controversial Legal Practice (Springer 2015) 173–210; Christopher Whelan, The Bodyguards of Lies: Lawyers’ Power and Professional Responsibility (Bloomsbury 2022), part II (‘Strategies to Protect the Truth’).
40 Oliver Wendell Holmes, ‘The Path of the Law’ (1897) 10 Harvard Law Review 457, 459.
41 Daniel T Ostas, ‘Legal Loopholes and Underenforced Laws: Examining the Ethical Dimensions of Corporate Legal Strategy’ (2009) 46 The American Business Law Journal 487, 504; Galanter (n 13).
42 Alejandro Esteban and Christopher Patz, ‘Suing Goliath. An Analysis of Civil Proceedings Brought Against EU Companies for Human Rights Abuses and Environmental Harm in their Global Operations and Value Chains, and Key Recommendations to Improve Access to Judicial Remedy’, European Coalition for Corporate Justice, 2022, 79. See: <https://corporatejustice.org/publications/suing-goliath/> accessed February 17 2023.
43 In the 1990s, the tobacco industry was estimated to be spending about $600 million per year on defence lawyers. See: House of Representatives (Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary), Attorney's Fees and The Tobacco Settlement, 1997, <http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju53772.000/hju53772_0f.htm> accessed 17 February 2023.
44 See Jan Salden, ‘Nog Nooit Gaf Het Rijk Zoveel Uit aan Juridisch Advies: Staat Zorgt Goed voor Eigen Belangen’, (Een Vandaag, 11 April 2021) <https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/item/nog-nooit-gaf-het-rijk-zo-veel-miljoenen-uit-aan-juridisch-advies-staat-zorgt-goed-voor-eigen-belangen/> accessed 17 February 2023; Aanhangsel Handelingen/2021-2022, nr. 1061, <https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/ah-tk-20212022-1061.pdf> accessed 17 February 2023.
45 Sara D Guardino and Richard A. Daynard, ‘Tobacco Industry Lawyers as “Disease Vectors”’, (2007) 16(4) Tobacco Control 224, 227.
46 Ruers (n 4); Tom Kreling and John Schoorl, ‘Asbestleed: Procederen tot de Dood erop Volgt’ Volkskrant (Amsterdam, 11 May 2019).
47 Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, Groningers Boven Gas: Rapport Parlementaire Enquête Commissie Aardgaswinning Groningen (2023), 1536.
48 Ostas (n 41) 505.
49 Dutch Code of Conduct for Lawyers (2018), rule 6.
50 Defined by Martijn Stronks (2022, 5) as ‘the temporal experience of the passage of time in human affairs’, which is to be contrasted with ‘clock-time’. See: Martijn Stronks, Grasping Legal Time, Temporality and European Migration Law (Cambridge University Press 2022).
51 ibid 96.
52 Sharon Milberger and Ronald M Davis et al, ‘Tobacco Manufacturers’ Defence Against Plaintiffs’ Claims of Cancer Causation: Throwing Mud at the Wall and Hoping Some of it Will Stick’ (2006) 15(4) Tobacco Control 17.
53 Cees van Dam, Aansprakelijkheidsrecht (Boom Juridisch 2020) 607.
54 Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid, Rapport Aardbevingsrisico’s in Groningen, Onderzoek naar de Rol van Veiligheid van Burgers in de Besluitvorming over de Gaswinning (1959–2014) (Den Haag 2015) 7–8; 60; 88–89; Wim Derksen and Mariëlle Gebben et al, Groningen en de Bevingen: Hoe Kennis Beleid Nauwelijks Beter Maakt (Boom Bestuurskunde 2022).
55 For a short history, see Jan M van Dunné, Schadevergoeding door Mijnbouwschade en Bodemdaling: Het Dossier Groningen. Publicaties 2002–2020 (Uitgeverij Paris 2020); GM Kuipers, Beschadigd Vertrouwen: Vertrouwenwekkend Schadebeleid na door de Overheid Gefaciliteerde Schade (Wolters Kluwer 2021) 267–432.
56 Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal (n 47) 1537.
57 Algemene Rekenkamer, Ministerie van Economische zaken en Klimaat: Rapport bij het Jaarverslag 2021 (Den Haag 2021) 3, 52–54.
58 ‘Vrouw Asbestslachtoffer DSM: Ze Moesten Toch Een Keer Toegeven’ (Trouw, 10 March 2004) <https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/vrouw-asbestslachtoffer-dsm-ze-moesten-toch-een-keer-toegeven~b9260cab/> accessed 17 February 2023.
59 See ‘Tata Steel traag met Afhandeling Asbestclaims’ (NOS, 11 May 2019) <https://nos.nl/artikel/2284061-tata-steel-traag-met-afhandeling-asbestclaims> accessed 17 February 2023.
60 Galanter (n 13).
61 David Luban, ‘Lawyers as Upholders of Human Dignity (When They Aren’t Busy Assaulting It)’ (2005) University of Illinois Law Review 815, 836; Maura I Strassberg, ‘Privilege Can Be Abused: Exploring the Ethical Obligation to Avoid Frivolous Claims of Attorney-Client Privilege’ (2007) 37(2) Seton Hall Law Review 413.
62 See also Gerard IJM Zwetsloot and Theo de Bruin, ‘Surviving Relatives as Stakeholders for Corporate Social Responsibility and as Leaders for Meaningful Safety Improvement: A Case Study from the Netherlands’ (2023) 157 Safety Science § 3.2.2.
63 See the legislative letter of the Dutch Authority Financial Markets (n 12) 10–11.
64 Madeleine Cuff, ‘Exxon Predicted Climate Change’ (2023) 257(3422) New Scientist 14; Emily L Williams, Sydney A Bartone, Emma K Swanson and Leah C Stokes, ‘The American Electric Utility Industry’s Role in Promoting Climate Denial, Doubt, and Delay’ (2022) 17 Environmental Research Letters 9; Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes, ‘Rhetoric and Frame Analysis of ExxonMobil’s Climate Change Communications’ (2021) 4 One Earth 696–719.
65 A Galič, ‘Disclosure of Documents in Civil Procedure: The Privilege against Self-Incrimination or a Quest for Procedural Fairness and Substantive Justice’ in JH van Ree and Alan Uzelac (eds), Evidence in Contemporary Civil Procedure. Fundamental Issues in a Comparative Perspective (Interstentia 2015) 43–46; Jonatan Baier, Bernhard Meyer, Dominik Vock and Emina Husic, ‘Perspectives on Document Disclosure’ (2021) Global Arbitration Review, < https://globalarbitrationreview.com/guide/the-guide-evidence-in-international-arbitration/1st-edition/article/perspectives-document-disclosure> accessed 17 February 2023.
66 A clear breach of the rules of professional conduct was identified in the case of McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia Ltd, in which ‘the judge found that, notwithstanding the policy’s title, its purpose was destruction, not retention’. See Cameron (n 2) 771.
67 Ostas (n 41) 502.
68 Galanter (n 13).
69 Sally Gunz and Sandra van der Laan, ‘Actuaries, Conflicts of Interest and Professional Independence: The Case of James Hardie Industries Limited’ (2011) 98(4) Journal of Business Ethics 583; Christine Parker and Tanina Rostain, ‘Law Firms, Global Capital, and the Sociological Imagination’ (2012) 80 Fordham Law Review 2347.
70 ibid 2349.
71 Edward J Janger, ‘Aggregation and Abuse: Mass Torts in Bankruptcy’ (2022) 91 Fordham Law Review 361.
72 Greg Gordon, a law partner at Jones Day who introduced the ‘Texas-two step’, has implemented this legal maneuver for several companies, including Johnson & Johnson. He described it as ‘the greatest innovation in the history of bankruptcy.’ See: Kathryn Rubino, ‘Jones Day Took Home Over $100 Million Thanks To A Controversial Bankruptcy Tactic’ (Above The Law, 14 February 2023) <https://abovethelaw.com/2023/02/jones-day-100-million-controversial-bankruptcy-texas-two-step/> accessed 17 February 2023.
73 Michael A Francus, ‘Texas Two-Stepping Out of Bankruptcy’ (2022) Michigan Law Review Online <https://michiganlawreview.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/3/2022/08/120MichLRevOnline38_Francus.pdf> accessed 17 February 2023. Francus summarises the two steps of this strategy as follows: ‘For a Texas Two-Step’s first step, the legacy business divides itself into a new business with assets (AssetCo) and a new business with liabilities (LiabilityCo). The second step is to place LiabilityCo into bankruptcy and have the bankruptcy court discharge the liabilities while AssetCo goes on its merry way.’
74 Richard Moorhead and Rachel Cahill-O’Callaghan, ‘False friends? Testing Commercial Lawyers on the Claim that Zealous Advocacy is Founded in Benevolence towards Clients Rather than Lawyers’ Personal Interest’ (2016) 19(1) Legal Ethics 50.
75 Mauricio A Latapí Agudelo, Lara Johannsdottir and Brynhildur Davidsdottir, ‘A Literature Review of the History and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility’ (2019) 4 International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 1.
76 Para 13 of the UNGP reads as follows: ‘The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business enterprises: (a) Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur; (b) Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts.’
77 OECD, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (OECD Publishing 2011).
78 ibid para 1.IV.
79 European Commission, A Renewed EU Strategy 2011–14 for Corporate Social Responsibility (European Commission 2011) para 4.8.2.
80 European Parliament Resolution of 10 March 2021 with Recommendations to the Commission on Corporate Due Diligence and Corporate Accountability (2020/2129 [INL]).
81 Jaap Winter et al, ‘Naar een Zorgplicht voor Bestuurders en Commissarissen ter Verantwoordelijke Deelname aan het Maatschappelijke Verkeer’ (2020) Ondernemingsrecht 86. The call from the law professors also included the proposal to oblige companies to formulate a statutory purpose or raison d’être. This call is in line with a broad purpose movement that has been developing in recent years. A purpose statement includes ‘why an enterprise exists, who it wants to serve, its reason for being and the role it plays in the world’: see Alex Edmans, Grow the Pie: How Great Companies Deliver Both Purpose and Profit (Cambridge University Press 2020) 192.
82 Wetsvoorstel houdende regels voor gepaste zorgvuldigheid in productieketens om schending van mensenrechten, arbeidsrechten en het milieu tegen te gaan bij het bedrijven van buitenlandse handel (Wet verantwoord en duurzaam internationaal ondernemen) (2020–21) 35(2) Kamerstukken 761. See also Liesbeth FH Enneking, ‘Van Beleid Naar Gepaste Zorgvuldigheid in Mondiale Waardeketens’ (2022) 43 Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Burgerlijk Recht 357.
83 Rechtbank Den Haag (District Court of The Hague) 26 mei 2021, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5337 (Milieudefensie e.a.vRoyal Dutch Shell).
84 Alex Geert Castermans and Caspar Philip Leonard van Woensel, CSR for Young Business Lawyers (Eleven International Publishing 2017).
85 Stéphane Brabant and Elsa Savourey, ‘From Global Toolbox to Local Implementation: The IBA Practical Guide on Business and Human Rights for Business Lawyers’ (2017) 2(2) Business and Human Rights Journal 343; Anita Ramasastry, ‘Advisors or Enablers? Bringing Professional Service Providers into the Guiding Principles Fold’ (2021) 6 Business and Human Rights Journal 291; John F Sherman III (2021) ‘The Corporate General Counsel Who Respects Human Rights’ (2021) 24(1) Legal Ethics 490.
86 Ramasastry (n 85) 3.
87 The same goes for the guide (2013) drafted by Advocates for International Development and the guides provided by the CCBE (2013, 2014, 2017), which primarily focus on the implications of CSR in their advisory role with regard to their clients’ ongoing business. This lack of attention to the implications of CSR for lawyers in their representative role in civil litigation is also reflected in the limited scholarly literature on this matter.
88 IBA Practical Guide on Business and Human Rights for Business Lawyers, 2016, 14.
89 ibid 25.
90 ibid 28.
91 Salyzyn and Simons (n 5) 42.
92 UNGP 13(b).
93 Salyzyn and Simons (n 5) 45. A more critical view comes from Spiesshofer: she argues that the application of CSR to corporate lawyers “risks undermining the independence of the attorneys and their role in the administration of justice as the examples from the Nazi regime and McCarthy era show.” See: Birgit Spiesshofer, ‘Be Careful What You Wish For: a European Perspective on the Limits of CSR in the Legal Profession’ (2021) 24(1) Legal Ethics 73. A full and balanced response to the concerns expressed by Spiesshofer cannot be provided here. We will only state that Spiesshofer’s argument appears to rest on a category error: by placing large multinational corporations on a par with vulnerable natural persons, her argument disregards the many ways in which corporate power, facilitated and strengthened by corporate lawyers, poses a serious threat to the administration of justice and to democracy.
94 It is for this reason that the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe called for bar organisations to assist their members by providing guidance on CSR matters regarding critical questions and dilemmas in concrete cases (CCBE, 2014).
95 Robert W Gordon, ‘A New Role for Lawyers? The Corporate Counselor after Enron’ (2003) 35 Connecticut Law Review 1185, 1199.
96 Judith A McMorrow and Luke M Scheuer, ‘The Moral Responsibility of the Corporate Lawyer’ (2010) 60 Catholic University Law Review 275, 278; Deborah L Rhode, ‘Ethical Perspectives on Legal Practice’ (1985) 37 Stanford Law Review 589, 589.
97 David Luban, ‘The Lysistratian Prerogative: A Response to Stephen Pepper’ (1986) 11(4) American Bar Foundation Research Journal 637, 639. See for this point also: Whelan (n 39), 28–29. Whelan argues that the exercise of autonomy by one individual is not valuable if it violates the autonomy of its victim.
98 Esther van der Meer (ed.), Ik wacht: 101 Verhalen uit het Aardbevingsgebied (Balans 2019).
99 David Luban, ‘Misplaced Fidelity’ (2012) 90 Texas Law Review 673, 679.
100 Sung Hui Kim, ‘Economic Inequality, Access to Law, and Mandatory Arbitration Agreements: A Comment on the Standard Conception of the Lawyer’s Role’ (2020) 88 Fordham Law Review 1665, 1671.
101 Van Dam (n 53) 600.
102 Gordon (n 95) 203.
103 Salazyn and Simons (n 5) 23.
104 Tim Dare, ‘Mere-Zeal, Hyper-Zeal and the Ethical Obligations of Lawyers’ (2004) 7(1) Legal Ethics 24, 30.
105 ibid 30.
106 ibid.
107 Dare himself acknowledges that this understanding is a revision of the dominant understanding of amoral lawyering. Dare (n 104) 35. It departs, for instance, from an interpretation that Markovits gives to this ideal when suggesting that lawyers ‘should try aggressively to manipulate both the facts and the law to suit their clients’ purposes’. See: Daniel Markovits, A Modern Legal Ethics: Adversary Advocacy in a Democratic Age (Princeton University Press 2009) 3.
108 Dare (n 104) 35.
109 HR (Supreme Court) 13 februari 2015, ECLI:N:HR:2015:304. See also: Maartje Verheiden and Veneta Oskam, ‘Proceskostenveroordeling, Onrechtmatig Procederen, Misbruik van procesrecht’ (2018) 79(5) Jurisprudentie Aansprakelijkheidsrecht (case note).
110 Charles Mill, ‘ “Ideal Theory” as Ideology’ (2005) 20(3) Hypatia 165.
111 Laura Valentini, ‘On the Apparent Paradox of Ideal Theory’ (2009) 17(3) The Journal of Political Philosophy 332, 332.
112 Colin Farrelly, ‘Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation’ (2007) 55 Political Studies 844, 845.
113 It would be worthwhile to further explore and discuss the rising in-context approach to legal ethics through the lens of the ideal–non-ideal debate within political philosophy.
114 Mill (n 110).
115 Of course, (legal) sociologists have already pointed out the ideological dimension of professionalism. See e.g.: Magali Sarfatti Larson, The Rise of Professionalism. Monopolies of Competence and Sheltered Markets (University of California Press 2012) 6; Richard Abel and Philip SC Lewis, Lawyers in Society. An Overview (University of California Press 1996).
116 Kim (n 100) 1682.
117 By ‘domination’ we mean the basic idea of an “unjust imbalance of power that enables agents or systems to control other agents or the conditions of their actions”, see Christopher McCammon, ‘Domination’ (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 8 November 2018) <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/domination/> accessed February 17 2023.
118 M Griffiths, ‘The Changing Politics of Time in the UK’s Immigration System’ in E. Mavroudi, A. Christou, and B. Page (eds), Timespace and International Migration (Edward Elgar Publishing 2017); see also Marcelle Reneman and Martijn Stronks, ‘What Are They Waiting For? The Use of Acceleration and Deceleration in Asylum Procedures by the Dutch Government’ (2021) Time & Society 6.
119 As cited in: ibid 6.
120 See for a discussion of how to evaluate these ‘reactive attitudes’ also: W. Bradley Wendel, ‘Lawyer Shaming’ (2022)1 University of Illinois Law Review 175.
121 Ruers (n 4).
122 William H Simon, ‘Who Needs the Bar? Professionalism Without Monopoly’ (2003) 30 Florida State University Law Review 654, 654–6.
123 Simon (n 23) 9.
124 RF Cochran Jr, ‘Louis D Brandeis and the Lawyer Advocacy System’ (2013) 40 Pepperdine Law Review 351.
125 David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge University Press 2007).
126 Deborah L Rhode, In the Interests of Justice: Reforming the Legal Professions (Oxford University Press 2000) 67. For a similar position, see Barbara Mescher, Legal Ethics for Lawyers: A New Model (Routledge 2023) 96–116.
127 Wendel (n 23) 71.
128 Whelan (n 39) 286–88.
129 Also suggested by Salyzyn and Simons (n 5).
130 See rule 3 of the code of conduct (2017) of the Association of Family Lawyers and Divorce Mediators (vFAS), which must be seen as an amendment to the general Dutch Code of Conduct for Lawyers (2018).
131 For the difficulty of identifying those affected by decisions made by legal professionals in a global, transnational context, see Davies and Henderson (2023) elsewhere in this special issue.
132 Stephen L Pepper, ‘Three Dichotomies in Lawyers’ Ethics (with Particular Attention to the Corporation as Client)’ (2015) 28 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 1069, 1079. In this article, Pepper argues that, in the corporate context, the ‘standard conception’ of lawyering is problematic.
133 ibid 1083.
134 ibid Pepper (n 132, 1110) also suggested that it is perhaps not coincidental that current rules of professional conduct predominantly focus on vulnerable clients: ‘[E]lite lawyers, who have tended to dominate in the drafting of the rules, perceive the risks of the other hemisphere of the profession more clearly than they see the risks in their own.’
135 For a discussion of the merits of a virtue-ethical approach to lawyering, with room for lawyerly discretion, see Iris van Domselaar, ‘The Fragility of Legal Ethics: On the Role of Theory, Lawyerly Virtues, and Moral Remainders in the Life of a Good Lawyer’ in Julian Webb (ed), Leading Works in Legal Ethics (Routledge 2023).
136 Alice Woolley and W Bradley Wendel, ‘Legal Ethics and Moral Character’ (2010) 23 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 1066.
137 Kevin Leicht and Mary L. Fennel, Professional Work: A Sociological Approach (Blackwell 2001) 105; Dinovitzer, Gunz and Gunz have argued on the basis of their qualitative empirical research that the phenomenon of client-capture in corporate practice – which is often understood as the ability of the client to control the activities, time and costs of the professional work- may be more complex than originally thought and in any case encompasses more than merely a straightforward one to one relation between the client and the lawyer. More specifically, they argue that ‘[client capture] may be less of a matter of a professional being captured by their client, but rather that professionals are influenced by a great many factors within the client firm and their own firm.’ See Ronit Dinovitzer, Hugh Gunz and Sally Gunz, ‘Unpacking Client Capture: Evidence from Corporate Law Firms’ (2014) 2(1) Journal of Professions and Organisation 99, 115.
138 See e.g.: Christine Parker and Tanina Rostain, ‘Law Firms, Global Capital, and the Sociological Imagination’ (2012) 80 Fordham Law Review 2347; Marc S Galanter and William D Henderson, ‘The Elastic Tournament: A Second Transformation of the Big Law Firm' (2008) 60 Stanford Law Review 1867, 1872; Deborah L Rhode, ‘Moral Counseling’ (2006) Fordham Law Review 1317, 1332; Pepper (n 132) 1079-1081.
139 Christine Parker and Tanina Rostain (n 138) 2360.
140 David Luban, ‘How Must a Lawyer Be? A Response to Woolley and Wendel’ (2010) 23 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 10-11.