Abstract
Morgan argues that lawyers "are economic actors, specially trained, but driven by all the vices and virtues of a capitalist economic system."9 He believes that the concepts of a "profession" and "professionalism" flowing from a social contract theory for the peer-review professions inhibit and weaken inevitably necessary responses of lawyers as economic actors to the new market realities. ". . . [U]se of the idea of a 'profession' to understand the world of lawyers obstructs clear thinking about what lawyers actually do and how they have to respond to the world they face."10 ". . . [W] e should not let the label 'profession' weaken the response to the realities that the future likely holds for legally trained persons."11 Professor Morgan argues that lawyers are economic actors just like all other occupations in a capitalistic economic system; indeed he predicts a substantial proportion of lawyers will become a type of business consultant.13 He thinks the sole justification offered for the legal profession's social contract is that "law and legal issues are largely impenetrable by non-lawyers" so "responsibility for both has been delegated to the legal profession."14 This justification, he argues, is no longer true so the "profession" and "professionalism" provide no basis for some degree of occupational control of the work.15 The ultimate question is not whether the concepts of a "profession" and "professionalism" in actual practice are flawed, but whether the alternative of the same employer/ employee and service provider/customer to maximize profit paradigm of other occupations with no special protection for professional autonomy and no core principles and ideals unique to the profession is more flawed in serving the public good. Is Morgan correct that each lawyer's and the profession's commitment to serve the public good of justice would be equally strong or stronger without the concepts of "profession" and "professionalism"? Do the core principles and ideals of a peer-review profession to serve the public good in the area of the profession's responsibility add something to our educational efforts to foster growth in students and practicing professionals from a narrow self-interested narcissism to a more complex understanding of human relationships and our duties to others? Professor Morgan thinks, and here I strongly disagree, that we can achieve these goals better by saying the "profession" and "professionalism" are dead. On the contrary, I think legal education and the profession have just begun to learn how effectively to foster professionalism - a strong ethical professional identity - in new entrants and veteran practitioners. The empirical data strongly support the hypothesis that adult moral formation continues to occur throughout education, including graduate education.35 Empirical research is pointing clearly toward researchvalidated pedagogies that successfully foster ethical professional identity36 We must give this effort a chance to help new entrants internalize the strong ethical identity toward concepts of responsibility and duty to the public good that both Professor Morgan and I (and many business ethics professors in the MBA programs) agree are important. These concepts of responsibility and duty flow from "profession" and "professionalism."