26 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 481 (2013)
Are Legal Ethics Ethical; A Survey Experiment

handle is hein.journals/geojlege26 and id is 507 raw text is: Are Legal Ethics Ethical? A Survey Experiment
STEPHEN R. GALOOB* AND Su LI**
ABSTRACT
Many core questions in legal ethics concern the relationship between ordinary
morality and rules of professional conduct that govern lawyers. Do these legal
ethics rules diverge from ordinary morality? Is the lawyer's role morally
distinctive? Do professional norms establish what the lawyer has most reason to
do? Conjectured answers to these questions abound. In this Article, we use
methods from moral psychology and experimental philosophy to provide the first
systematic, empirical examination of these questions. Results from a survey
experiment suggest that legal ethics rules about advocacy and confidentiality
diverge from lay moral judgments; that lay judgments do not, in general,
attribute distinctive moral significance to the lawyer's role; and that norms of
professional conduct can change (but do not fully determine) the ordinary moral
status of lawyers'actions. We conclude by discussing some theoretical and policy
implications of these results.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION..........................................                             482
1.  THREE EMPIRICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT LEGAL ETHICS ........                        484
A. DO LEGAL ETHICS RULES DIVERGE FROM ORDINARY
MORALITY?....................................                           484
B. HOW MUCH DOES THE LAWYER'S ROLE MATTER
MORALLY? ....................................                           491
* Ph.D. Candidate, Program in Jurisprudence and Social Policy, School of Law, University of California,
Berkeley; (beginning fall 2013) Assistant Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law. We are grateful
to participants at a panel on Comparative Legal Ethics at the 2012 meeting of the Law and Society Association
and an audience at the 2012 Conference on Empirical Legal Studies for feedback. Special thanks to John Bliss,
Steve Bundy, David Fontana, Michael Gilbert, Patrick Hanlon, Adam Hill, Daniel Ho, Sung Hui Kim,
Christopher Kutz, Robert Lawless, Ethan Leib, Rob MacCoun, Joy Milligan, Victoria Plaut, Kevin Quinn,
Keramet Reiter, Deborah Rhode, Naomi Schoenbaum, Bill Simon, Christina Stevens, the JSP working group,
participants in the interdisciplinary seminar on moral psychology at U.C. Berkeley's Townsend Center for the
Humanities, and the staff of the Experimental Psychology Laboratory at U.C. Berkeley (including Miho Tanaha
and Rowlima del Castillo). This research was supported by a grant from the Alumni Fund of the Jurisprudence
and Social Policy Program at the U.C. Berkeley School of Law. @ 2013, Stephen R. Galoob and Su Li.
** Statistician, Center for the Study of Law & Society, University of California, Berkeley.

481

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?