Do Lawyers Need Codes of Ethics? A case study from the Czech Republic

There are many objections we may raise against codes of ethics. A principle-based objection challenges the existence of codes of ethics If decisions are to be made by free moral actors, then codes of ethics represent a useless set of externally prescribed rules, because adherence to an external rule does not constitute moral action.

In a similar spirit, another argument states that morality cannot be legally or formally represented: . The first part of this quotation indicates that institutionalising moral rules tends to narrow down and simplify those rules. Incorporating moral rules into a code of ethics deprives the rules of their moral nature, and they become legal or quasi-legal rules. This brings about an unacceptable reduction of their content. The second part of the quotation casts doubt on the importance of pre-existing texts for moral actors. Individuals formulate their impressions of moral processes from sources other than texts, such as from the wording of professional oaths, from older colleagues etc.

Another source of criticism is the lack of trust in the profession, or in professional associations as a whole. In particular, if a profession is subject to self-regulation or has significant influence on the regulation applied to it, a situation can arise in which the wolf is set to mind the sheep. The conflict of interest between a profession and the public may lead to the introduction of rules that serve to protect the profession rather than impose relevant requirements on the professional. Even when rules are introduced in good faith, they may come across as simple compromises rather than noble aspirations. When codes of ethics are being formed, the requirements and demands of lobbying factions within each profession, each with their own interests, must be taken into account. Relatedly, the adoption of a code does not necessarily mean that a profession is making an effort to limit itself and set ambitious goals, it may simply be a facade-a political act undertaken when the profession is beginning to lose public trust. In selfregulating professions, there is often concern over class bias, whereby a group of regulating persons sets the rules to suit their own interests, failing to take into account and perhaps even violating the interests of other members of the profession.

Some authors go even further in their criticism, asserting that codes of ethics have an adverse effect on the quality of moral thinking because they prevent the moral development of an individual. If a code sets the minimum standard (or the abovementioned compromise), adherence to such a code produces moral mediocrity at best. In this way, moral decision-making using a code of ethics may hinder actual morality: instead of basing a decision on personal moral deliberation and acceptance of personal moral responsibility, an actor may apply regulations in a mechanical manner.

The overviews provided in 1.1 and 1.2 are not exhaustive, but rather basic outlines, and different authors may vary in their classification of the reasons given for and against codes of ethics. For example, Vincent Johnson mentioned the educational and aspirational functions of codes under their so-called declaratory function. Similarly, Nancy Moore claimed that codes of ethics serve to gain the public's trust and that they reflect the responsibility of a profession towards the public. She referred to these aspects as the ideological function of the codes. I disregard these nuances because the purpose of this text is not to relay similar content from multiple authors, but rather to present the basic content itself.