moral concerns while retaining the predictability and order that the current system enjoys. Under the current regime, the Model Rules provide a number of general scenarios in which attorneys must, may, or must not act in a prescribed manner. But under a Dworkian regime, these ethical rules would apply presumptively unless their applicability to a novel and unforeseen circumstance were rebutted on ethical grounds. Dworkin’s model and this Essay’s additions to it reconceptualize the Model Rules as rebuttable presumptions, presumptions that attorneys must consider and can rebut if they find sufficient reason to act otherwise. Part II of this Essay overviews the Model Rules and examines their impact on which serves as an excellent litmus test of the kinds Spaulding v. Zimmerman, of ethical dilemmas facing most attorneys today. In Part III, this Essay analyzes the shortcomings of the solutions that attorneys and academics have relied on in their attempts to resolve the dilemma. Part IV delves into this Essay’s case for why Dworkin’s model holds out great promise in the effort to finally resolve today’s Antigone Dilemma scenario. Part V then outlines the advantages of reconceptualizing the Model Rules into rebuttable model presumptions.
moral concerns while retaining the predictability and order that the current system enjoys. Under the current regime, the Model Rules provide a number of general scenarios in which attorneys must, may, or must not act in a prescribed manner. But under a Dworkian regime, these ethical rules would presumptively apply unless their applicability to a novel and unforeseen circumstance were rebutted on ethical grounds. Dworkin’s model and this Essay’s additions to it reconceptualize the Model Rules as rebuttable presumptions, presumptions that attorneys must consider and can rebut if they find sufficient reason to act otherwise. Part II of this Essay overviews the Model Rules and examines their impact on Spaulding v. Zimmerman, which serves as an excellent litmus test of the kinds of ethical dilemmas facing most attorneys today. In Part III, this Essay analyzes the shortcomings of the solutions that attorneys and academics have relied on in their attempts to resolve the dilemma. Part IV delves into this Essay’s case for why Dworkin’s model holds out great promise in the effort to finally resolve today’s Antigone Dilemma scenario. Part V then outlines the advantages of reconceptualizing the Model Rules into rebuttable model presumptions.
Burger_2015_Pearsall_Essay.docx