Should 'do no harm' be added to lawyer ethics rules? Torture memo shows need for change, op-ed says
Image from Shutterstock.
Legal ethics rules should be changed to make clear that legal approval of torture and other unlawful abuses is not permitted, according to law professor’s op-ed.
Alexa Van Brunt, a Northwestern University law professor and a lawyer for its MacArthur Justice Center, alleges that government lawyers “flouted international law” by condoning harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists.
In a Washington Post column, Brunt calls for “an enhanced ethical regime” in the legal profession, perhaps one that is modeled over the medical profession’s “do no harm” Hippocratic oath.
“In the legal context, this would require the creation of ethical principles that explicitly state that service to the client does not trump duty to the laws and Constitution, and that complicity in acts of torture and other such unlawful abuses would constitute a disciplinary offense—even if done on behalf of the president of the United States,” Brunt writes.
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on the CIA interrogation program does make clear that some interrogation techniques exceeded those approved by lawyers in the U.S. Justice Department, Brunt says. But waterboarding, sanctioned as lawful by government lawyers, is still torture, Brunt asserts.
“We as a profession must recognize that our current ethical rules are not enough, particularly for those lawyering at the margins,” Brunt writes. “A greater mandate is called for—whoever the client, first, do no harm.”
