El principio de no responsabilidad de los abogados y el dilema de la heroicidad
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5347/62/2025/787Keywords:
Standard Conception of legal ethics, Freedom to accept clients, Supererogatory conduct, NeutralityAbstract
The Principle of Lawyers’ Nonaccountability and the Heroism Dilema
There is a tension between the Principle of Nonaccountability, which holds that lawyers cannot be morally criticized for the clients they defend, and the practice of praising some lawyers as heroes. Bradley Wendel frames this as a dilemma: either we abandon judgments of heroism or reject the Principle of Nonaccountability. This paper argues that Wendel’s “heroism dilemma” is either superfluous or false. By offering a new interpretation of the principle, the paper introduces a revised version of the dilemma and resolves it by using the concept of supererogatory conduct to explain judgments of heroism.
References
Agencia Télam. (2015). “La noche de las corbatas”, cuando la dictadura intentó silenciar a los abogados que defendían a trabajadores. Télam Digital, 5 de julio. https://web.archive.org/web/20201112020005/https://www.telam.com.ar/notas/201507/111552-la-noche-de-las-corbatas-dictadura-abogados.php
Archer, A. (2016). Are Acts of Supererogation Always Praiseworthy? Theoria, 82(3), 238–255.
Benn, C. (2018). Supererogation, Optionality and Cost. Philosophical Studies, 175(10), 2399–2417.
Campusano, M. N. (2021). Los efectos de la militancia: Sus costos y demandas cotidianas. Estudio sobre la participación de jóvenes en organizaciones político partidarias en Resistencia (Chaco). In D. Beretta, P. Núñez, D. R. Rivarola, & F. Laredo (Eds.), Activismo, desigualdades y políticas públicas en perspectiva Juvenil (pp. 65–84). Universidad Nacional de Rosario Editora.
Comisión Provincial de la Memoria de Córdoba Córdoba. (2006). Archivo Provincial de la Memoria. Legajo de Eduardo Jorge Valverde Suárez. https://apm.gov.ar/presentes/detalle/505
Dare, T. (2009). The Counsel of Rogues? A Defense of the Standard Conception of the Lawyer’s Role. Ashgate.
Dorsey, D. (2023). The Staircase Scene: Supererogation and Moral Attunement. In D. Heyd (Ed.), Handbook of Supererogation (pp. 87–104). Springer.
Eshleman, A. (2014). Worthy of Praise: Responsibility and Better-than-Minimally-Decent Agency. In D. Shoemaker & N. Tognazzini (Eds.), Agency and Respoonsibility (pp. 216–242). Oxford University Press.
Freedman, M. (1993). Must You Be the Devil’s Advocate? Legal Times, August 23, 19.
Gallego, M. (2019). Los abogados de Atocha: la masacre que marcó la Transición. Los Libros de la Catarata.
Gaxie, D. (2015). Retribuciones de la militancia y paradojas de la acción colectiva. Interticios. Revista de Sociología y Pensamiento Crítico, 9, 131–153.
Gray, F. (2013). Bus Ride to Justice. The Life and Works of Fred Gray. NewSouth Books.
Heyd, D. (2023). Promise-Making and Supererogation. In D. Heyd (Ed.), Handbook of Supererogation (pp. 2021–2036). Springer.
Horgan, T., & Timmons, M. (2010). Untying a Knot from the Inside Out: Reflections on the “Paradox” of Supererogation. Social Philosophy and Policy, 27(2), 29–63.
________ (2023). The Expected, the Contra-Expected, the Supererogatory, and the Suberogatory. In D. Heyd (Ed.), Handbook of Supererogation (pp. 119–130). Springer.
Kawall, J. (2005). Promising and supererogation. Philosopia, 32, 389–398.
Luban, D. (1988). Lawyers and Justice: An Ethical Study. Princeton Unviersity Press.
________ (2007). Legal Ethics and Human Dignity. Cambridge University Press.
McNamara, P. (2011). Supererogation, Inside and Out: Toward an Adequate Scheme for Common-Sense Morality. In M. Timmons (Ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics (pp. 202–235). Oxford University Press.
Mellema, G. (1991). Beyond the Call of Duty. State University of New York Press.
New, C. (1974). Saints, Heroes and Utilitarians. Philosophy, 49, 179–189.
Ortiz, E. R. (2011). Los abogados y la lucha por el derecho. Estudios, 25, 233–247.
Postema, G. (1980). Moral Responsibility in Professional Ethics. New York University Law Review, 55(1), 63–89.
Pybus, E. (1982). Saints and Heroes. Philosophy, 57, 193–199.
Schwartz, M. L. (1983). The Zeal of the Civil Advocate. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 8(3), 543–563.
Schwenkenbecher, A. (2021). Getting Our Act Together: A Theory of Collective Moral Obligations. Routledge.
Seleme, H. O. (2020). Inocencia, Legitimidad y Lealtad. Editorial B de F.
________ (2023a). El control de los abogados: Ley, mercado, honor y moral. Revista Justicia & Derecho, 6(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.32457/rjyd.v7i1.2260
________ (2023b). La ética de los abogados. Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas (UNAM).
Simon, W. H. (1978). The Ideology of Advocacy: Procedural Justice and Professional Ethics. Wisconsin Law Review, 29, 28–144.
________ (1998). The Practice of Justice: A Theory of Lawyer’s Ethics. Harvard University Press.
Stangl, R. (2023). Must Virtue Be Heroic? Virtue Ethics and the Possibility of Supererogation. In D. Heyd (Ed.), Handbook of Supererogation (pp. 105–118). Springer.
Stanlick, N. (1999). The Nature and Value of Supererogatory Actions. Journal of Social Philosophy, 30(1), 209–222.
Straumanis, J. (1984). Duties to oneself: An ethical basis for self-liberation? Journal of Social Philosophy, 15, 1–13.
Tigar, M. (1993). Setting the Record Straight on the Defense of John Demjanju. Legal Times, September 6, 10.
Urmson, J. O. (2023). Saints and Heroes. In D. Heyd (Ed.), Handbook of Supererogation (pp. 17–27). Springer.
Wendel, B. W. (2010). Lawyers and Fidelity to Law. Princeton University Press.
________ (2024). Canceling Lawyers: Case Studies of Accountability, Toleration, and Regret. Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Isonomía - Revista de teoría y filosofía del derecho
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ITAM, the publisher, has the copyright of published articles and remaining types of publications. Publications are in open access and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. That means, among other things, that authors can freely share their articles, once published in Isonomía, on their personal web pages, Academia.edu, etc.. Between formal acceptance and online publication, authors can share the final drafts of their articles. In contrast, authors must seek permission to reproduce or reprint work, and mention, in the first footnote, "previously published in Isonomía, year, n. x, pp. xx-xx"..
