The title comes from a best-selling self-help book. A best-seller not yet written, but one day we will write.
“Saying no” is a primary lesson learned in the childhood of ethical life. Serves as a lawyer, judge and businessman. It serves ethical life in general, which covers not only duties to do, but also duties not to do, prohibitions on conduct. It’s worth trying to live as little wrongly as possible. Applied to the legal professions, it is worth trying to defend less wrong, accuse less wrong, judge less wrong.
O. Not because of the originality of what he said, but because he tried to awaken the legal profession from a long slumber of leniency and complicity. Consulted on the types of relationships that lawyers can have with authorities, .
He stated that there is “ethical symmetry” in the essential functions of Justice, that “advocacy must be guided by the same ethical horizon” as the Judiciary; that, as judges, they must be concerned with the “appearance of impartiality and favoritism”; that material benefits to magistrates, prosecutors, parliamentarians, or any undue influence are prohibited.
He highlighted the duty of urbanity and the institutional dimension of law, which prohibits the “creation of bonds of gratitude, moral obligation or proximity that compromise the exemption of either party”, or the image of exemption. The solution graduated: green light for transparent institutional interactions, red light for direct personal benefits, yellow light for grayer concrete cases.
In short, in the rapporteur’s words: “the conduct of lawyers who promote, finance or provide benefits, facilities or material advantages to public agents — especially magistrates, members of the Public Ministry and parliamentarians — is ethically prohibited as it constitutes an affront to the principles of professional independence, the dignity of the legal profession, the prohibition of the use of undue influence and the duty to safeguard the reputation of the class”.
The decision offered a record of self-control, compliance with legal temptations. And if I go to a friend’s box at the stadium and, by coincidence, the minister reporting on the case arrives, can’t I stay? No. And if I am grateful to the minister and want to honor him in my home, can’t I? No. What if…? Best not.
With forgiveness from the explorers of legal unethics, who sometimes present themselves as vigilantes of moralism, there is not much that is valid when we look at the landscape of behavior.
A club of lawyers began to get rich through a private extra-procedural relationship, a closed meeting, a tight hug after the goal at Camp Nou, a birthday sailing in the Mediterranean. He refined the method of whispering in the ear, which the bachelor’s sense of humor nicknamed “ear embargos”.
As a lawyer friend said, the house in Brasília is worth more than the academic chair or doctrinal production, more the meeting room with a Greco-Roman pool in Lago Sul than the library, more the cigar than the book, more the relationship than the argument, more the choreographed affection than legal knowledge.
Jurisdiction is organized around the thesis, antithesis and formation of judgment. For a law group, saying the law is accompanied by another mixology.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
