Film Character Review- Arthur Kirkland | Summaries Ethics

Answer:

In my view, Arthur Kirkland is not a good lawyer as he is constantly shown to be engaging in

unethical conduct. The same is deducible from many different parts of the movie, Arthur is

time and again perceived as violating many normative rules and procedures that are or ideally

should be, followed in a courtroom to preserve the sanctity of law, order and justice, though

at the same time, he is also shown to be a man of strong moral integrity.

The movie begins with Arthur being released from Prison, to which he was sentenced for

being in contempt of court (he had made threats to the judge). Added to this, the consequent

conversation between Arthur and his colleague at the Courtroom reflected that Arthur was

habitually violating the sanctity of the Courtroom by acting in undignified manner, to the

extent that he had come under the Ethics Committee’s radar.

It is also noted that Arthur did not change the clothes he was in, when he came out of the

prison and instead walks right inside the Court dressed very shabbily and inappropriately.

Doing so, Arthur again violates one major rule of ethical conduct (expected from a lawyer)

towards the Court, ie., of appearing in a proper dress code.

The movie then proceeds to the Courtroom scenes where it is observed that Arthur uses

inappropriate language in the Court and is later even seen abusing in the Court as well. This

is disrespectful of the court and is considered to be one of the most unethical behaviours that

a lawyer could demonstrate. A lawyer is essentially expected to be an “officer” of the court,

that is given the task of presenting his client’s case, irrespective of his guilt or innocence.

Arthur seems to disregard this notion and is repeatedly shown making inappropriate and

sarcastic comments in the Court.

After Court proceedings, some scenes also show Arthur communicating privately with the

judges, seeking favours or favourable outcomes from them. Though Arthur’s intentions were

justified from a moral point of view (as he wanted to get a hearing for his client), his actions

were grossly unprofessional as a good lawyer is ethically bound to not communicate about a

pending case privately with a judge.

During the movie, it is also revealed that Arthur had once also violated his duty to the client

(Ernest Drago) to keep all communications (between the client and lawyer) strictly

confidential. Arthur breached confidentiality and acted against the client’s interests, by

reporting him to Arthur to the police based on information that the client told Arthur in

Partial preview of the text

Download Film Character Review- Arthur Kirkland and more Summaries Ethics in PDF only on Docsity!

Answer: In my view, Arthur Kirkland is not a good lawyer as he is constantly shown to be engaging in unethical conduct. The same is deducible from many different parts of the movie, Arthur is time and again perceived as violating many normative rules and procedures that are or ideally should be, followed in a courtroom to preserve the sanctity of law, order and justice, though at the same time, he is also shown to be a man of strong moral integrity. The movie begins with Arthur being released from Prison, to which he was sentenced for being in contempt of court (he had made threats to the judge). Added to this, the consequent conversation between Arthur and his colleague at the Courtroom reflected that Arthur was habitually violating the sanctity of the Courtroom by acting in undignified manner, to the extent that he had come under the Ethics Committee’s radar. It is also noted that Arthur did not change the clothes he was in, when he came out of the prison and instead walks right inside the Court dressed very shabbily and inappropriately. Doing so, Arthur again violates one major rule of ethical conduct (expected from a lawyer) towards the Court, ie., of appearing in a proper dress code. The movie then proceeds to the Courtroom scenes where it is observed that Arthur uses inappropriate language in the Court and is later even seen abusing in the Court as well. This is disrespectful of the court and is considered to be one of the most unethical behaviours that a lawyer could demonstrate. A lawyer is essentially expected to be an “officer” of the court, that is given the task of presenting his client’s case, irrespective of his guilt or innocence. Arthur seems to disregard this notion and is repeatedly shown making inappropriate and sarcastic comments in the Court. After Court proceedings, some scenes also show Arthur communicating privately with the judges, seeking favours or favourable outcomes from them. Though Arthur’s intentions were justified from a moral point of view (as he wanted to get a hearing for his client), his actions were grossly unprofessional as a good lawyer is ethically bound to not communicate about a pending case privately with a judge. During the movie, it is also revealed that Arthur had once also violated his duty to the client (Ernest Drago) to keep all communications (between the client and lawyer) strictly confidential. Arthur breached confidentiality and acted against the client’s interests, by reporting him to Arthur to the police based on information that the client told Arthur in

confidence. However, Arthur time and again defends his actions of speaking out, in the name of justice and his sense of personal moral obligations. He is portrayed as a person who has lost all respect for the judicial system from his experience of working inside the system and thinks the whole system to be morally corrupt and full of flaws. He is shown to ask for favours from Judge Flemming, in exchange for becoming the Judge’s counsel in the rape case files against him, which again, is a grossly unethical act. However, it is clear from the first half of the movie that Arthur is a man of strong sense of moral integrity and gets personally invested for his clients. It is highlighted in the movie that his actions are often controlled by his emotions, that fall in juxtaposition to the ethical duties on him as lawyer. A good lawyer would have the ability to keep separate, his personal life and his professional life, whereas in Arthur’s case he seems to personally undertake all the responsibility of the client’s action and in case he fails to help the client, he appears to have a breakdown (as in Ralph Algee’s case). It is pertinent to mention here that I feel Arthur is a good lawyer to the extent that he does not engage in exploiting conduct with his clients and is shown to take up cases in which the accused is falsely alleged or convicted, unlike his colleagues (Larren) who charge obnoxiously high fees even from fellow lawyers and see advocacy as a business rather than a profession engaged in serving the ends of justice. Instead, Arthur seems to be rather ethically responsible when it comes to the financial aspect. He picks up clients irrespective of their financial capacity, with his primary motive being solely to provide the client with the right legal assistance that they require, thereby fulfilling one of the “highest obligations as advocate owes to the society” (as per the Chapter on “Fees and Retainers” in “Professional Ethics for Lawyers - Changing Profession, Changing Ethics” by Raju Ramchandran). Arthur is also shown to have a pretty insightful understanding of the injustices being perpetrated by the legal system and the corrupt judicial mechanism that serves injustice under the garb of legal rules and reasoning and perpetuates inequality. The movie presents insights of the inner workings of the Court, the deal-making and favour-calling that goes on in the judicial system, operating in a way so as to protect the privileged. Arthur is a lawyer that does not fit himself under the implied hierarchy in the judicial system as highlighted in Duncan Kennedy’s work “Legal Education as Training for Hierarchy” wherein he elucidates upon the hierarchical nature of judicial offices that hold the Judges and the Courtroom in very high regard (which is often ingrained in young law students through ideologically influences training in law schools). Arthur seemingly does not like to fit inand obey the rules of this unsaid hierarchy.

Film Character Review- Arthur Kirkland, Summaries of Ethics

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Film Character Review- Arthur Kirkland and more Summaries Ethics in PDF only on Docsity!