Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, November 19, 2008 10:39 AM

  Caveats and Sham Pain

  but consider representation of a rich corporation like Chiquita to be morally suspect.

  Persons have, I am told "inalienable" rights. Rights which arise from their condition as human beings. These were, to the signers self evident. Corporations are not people, and I don't see how their legal defense under a system which privileges them as if they were is an obligation.

  In a system like, say, apartheid, or a system which gives special rights or immunities to party members (like in a Commie state) does a lawyer have an obligation to defend people in a system which privileges them? At that point, is he defending the person, or the system?

  I think a good case might be made for not defending a corporation in a system which, before the case even starts, privileges the corporation in a way which should be reserved exclusively for individuals.

  And certainly, inferences can be drawn from a lawyer's willingness to do that. Before he defends the corporation, he must accept that the system which privileges the corporation as a person, instead of a business entity which has a primary responsibility to the community is a good one.

  In a system which gives corporations rights similar to those given individuals, yet does not impose corresponding obligations on the corporations, yes, defending the corporation is questionable. By doing so you contend that the system under which you defend the corporation is a fair one to begin with.

  —Derbig Mooser Read Derbig Mooser's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel