Lawyers play various roles in the adversary system of justice.

Such roles are the subject of different and often conflicting principles in the field of professional responsibility and ethics. These principles were the subject of Fred C. Zacharias lecture entitled Fitting Lying to the Court into the Central Moral Tradition of Lawyering. One principle is the ultra-adversarial norm as proposed by Lord Broughman and upheld today by Freedman. It contemplates the role of a lawyer as a champion of his client; that the law and code of ethics should be interpreted in light of a lawyers principle obligation which is to serve his clients interests. This is known as the Dominant View of legal ethics. At the opposite side of the debate is where Zacharias stands. It contemplates a more complicated world than that postulated by Freedman. In Zacharias view, the legal system is not one-dimensional and thought must be given to conflicting values and considerations affecting lawyers. In the discussion, Zacharias compared the two sides through Freedmans question: should lawyers intentionally lie to the court? For Freedman, there are circumstances that would justify lying to the court so long as it is done in the furtherance of the clients interests. To illustrate further, Freedman posits a situation wherein a judge asks the lawyer if the latters client is guilty or not. Freedman argues that in such situation, the judge has acted improperly; therefore the lawyer is justified in lying to the court that his client is indeed innocent even if it were otherwise. But for Zacharias, Freedman failed to consider other ramifications of such act of lying to the courts in order to serve the clients interests. Zacharias stressed Freedmans failure to recognize the fact lawyers play several roles, not just as clients champions. One such role, that for Professor Lawry was the lawyers foremost role, is to make sure that the legal system operates in its intended fashion. In this role, truth-telling plays a vital part and as such, must never be compromised in favor of clients interests. Freedman fails to foresee the consequences of lying such as the consequential loss of dignity and integrity not only of the individual lawyer who engages in such practice, but also for the entire profession as other lawyers, the judges of courts, and the client themselves lose trust in the words of the lawyer. Number of words: 393