Legal ethics are essentially a set of moral principles that govern the behavior of practitioners. Importantly, not everything that is legal is necessarily ethical—this distinction underscores the need for ethical standards that go beyond mere compliance with the law.

Integrity

This principle emphasizes honesty and transparency in all dealings, both with clients and within the courtroom. A clear example is seen in United States v. McGoff, where a lawyer was disbarred for failing to disclose critical information to the court. Such a breach not only compromised the fairness of the legal process but also eroded trust in the justice system. A lack of integrity can have far-reaching consequences—misleading the court or concealing facts may lead to unjust outcomes for both the plaintiff and the defendant. Moreover, it can damage the reputations of all parties involved, including legal professionals, and diminish public confidence in the legal system as a whole. Upholding integrity ensures that attorneys act as stewards of justice, preserving the credibility of the system and protecting the rights of all stakeholders in a case.

Confidentiality

Legal practitioners are ethically and professionally obliged to protect client information. This duty is fundamental to building trust between an attorney and their client, allowing for full and honest disclosure. A notable example is Swidler & Berlin v. United States (1998), where the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether attorney-client privilege survives a client’s death. In this case, independent counsel sought access to notes from a conversation between an attorney and his client, who had since passed away, arguing that the notes were relevant to a criminal investigation. The Court ruled that the privilege remained intact, reinforcing the principle that confidentiality is essential—not only during a client’s lifetime but also afterward.

This ruling highlighted that a breach of confidentiality could have a chilling effect on the legal process: clients may withhold vital information if they fear it could later be disclosed, thereby undermining their own defense and compromising justice. Moreover, violations can harm all stakeholders—potentially skewing outcomes, infringing on a client’s rights, and damaging the integrity and reputation of the legal profession. Safeguarding confidentiality is therefore not only a legal requirement but also a cornerstone of ethical legal practice that protects the fairness of the entire judicial system.

Competence

Legal practitioners must possess and maintain the necessary knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation to effectively represent their clients. This is not merely a technical requirement—it is an ethical duty with real-world implications. In In re Conduct of Gatti (Oregon 2000), attorney Anthony Gatti was suspended for 90 days for engaging in conduct that demonstrated a lack of competence and professionalism. Specifically, Gatti misrepresented himself as a medical professional to obtain information during the discovery phase of a personal injury case. Rather than using proper legal channels, he posed as a claims manager to speak directly with healthcare providers, violating both ethical and procedural standards.

This deception not only jeopardized the admissibility of the evidence he collected but also severely undermined his client's case. As a result, the client suffered delays and legal disadvantages, including the potential weakening of their position in a legitimate personal injury claim. Gatti’s conduct exemplifies how incompetence—whether through a lack of legal knowledge or poor judgment—can lead to significant harm for clients, such as lost claims, increased costs, or prolonged litigation. It also erodes the opposing party's trust in the legal process, damages professional reputations, and contributes to a public perception of lawyers as untrustworthy or reckless. Maintaining competence is therefore essential to ensuring fairness, protecting clients’ interests, and upholding the overall integrity of the legal system.

Conflict of Interest

Attorneys are ethically obligated to avoid situations that could compromise their ability to act impartially or loyally for their clients. A classic example is presented in Formal Opinion 92-367 issued by the American Bar Association (ABA), which addressed a hypothetical scenario in which a lawyer represented two clients whose legal interests were directly opposed. While the opinion acknowledged that such dual representation may not always be strictly prohibited, it emphasized that full disclosure and informed consent from both parties is essential.

Why is this necessary? Because the core of an attorney-client relationship is trust—and that trust depends on the belief that the attorney is fully committed to advocating for their client's best interests without divided loyalties. If a conflict of interest is not disclosed, a lawyer may unconsciously (or deliberately) soften their advocacy for one client to benefit the other, potentially harming one or both clients’ cases. Even the mere appearance of bias can undermine client confidence and damage the credibility of the legal system.

Failing to disclose a conflict doesn’t just threaten individual cases—it can also lead to serious consequences such as the disqualification of counsel, reversal of verdicts, or professional discipline. In turn, this affects a wide range of stakeholders: the clients, whose cases may suffer; the courts, which may waste time and resources; and the broader public, whose trust in the fairness and integrity of the legal profession is essential. Thus, transparency in disclosing conflicts is not a formality—it is a safeguard to ensure that justice is truly served without hidden agendas or divided loyalties.

Advocacy for Justice

Legal professionals have a fundamental ethical duty to pursue justice—even when doing so may conflict with personal, financial, or professional interests. This principle is powerfully illustrated in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the landmark Supreme Court case that declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. The case was brought forth by a team of attorneys from the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, including Thurgood Marshall, who would later become the first African American Supreme Court Justice.

These lawyers were not acting for personal financial gain; in fact, many worked long hours for little or no pay, facing significant professional risk and public hostility. What drove them was a deep commitment to dismantling institutional racism and ensuring that the constitutional promise of equal protection under the law applied to all Americans. Their advocacy required strategic legal thinking, moral courage, and a willingness to challenge deeply entrenched social and legal norms.

By prioritizing civil rights over their own comfort or profit, the Brown legal team demonstrated that lawyers can—and must—serve as agents of justice in society. Their actions changed the course of American history, laying the legal groundwork for the Civil Rights Movement and advancing equal access to education. The case is a reminder that ethical advocacy is not just about winning a case—it’s about using the law to uphold human dignity, challenge injustice, and strengthen the legal system’s legitimacy in the eyes of the public.