Mick Haller's Moral Framework in The Lincoln Lawyer: LAW3312 Analysis

This essay examines the moral framework employed by Mick Haller, the criminal defense lawyer in the film The Lincoln Lawyer. The analysis reveals Haller's egoistic approach, highlighting ethical breaches such as misleading the judge and prioritizing personal gain over client interests, violating rules of professional conduct. The essay explores how Haller's actions, including manipulating the justice system and potentially contracting violence, conflict with ethical standards. Furthermore, it compares Haller's framework with ethical considerations, such as the ethics of care, and assesses whether his practices align with contemporary legal ethics. The essay concludes by critiquing Haller's approach and arguing against it as the best framework for modern legal practice, emphasizing the importance of upholding ethical obligations and justice in the legal profession. The essay provides a detailed overview of the ethical issues and moral frameworks presented in the film.

Surname1
Name
Professor
Course
Date
Question A
Egoistic moral framework is applied by Mick Haller in his practice of the law. In the
film, The Lincoln Lawyer Mick Haller is the criminal defense lawyer. Morally he commits
several ethical breaches and this defines his moral framework in his practice of the law. Through
his moral skills obtained in the criminal defense, he cheats the judge about the need to keep trail
through investigating Mr. Green who is a fictitious witness1. This is tricky he sets s that he can
draw the payments from the client. This is the use of the criminal moral framework to violate
court laws2. Concerning this moral framework by Mick Haller, he violates rule 5-200 which
states that an attorney general shall take actions that mislead the judge through giving the false
statement or artifice. This action of misleading the judge also violates rule 6069 that states that
the attorney general should not encourage the continuance of the proceedings or the actions from
any of the corrupt passion or corruption interest3. This is kind of the crime that should be proved
with the highest degree. This happens after he discovers that one of his representative clients
1 Petrina McPherson, ‘Professional Courtesy’ (2010) 30(1) Proctor 37
2 Carrie Menkel-Meadow, ‘Portia in a Different Voice: Speculations on a Women’s Lawyering
Process’ (1985) 1(1) Berkeley Women’s Law Journal 39–63

Surname2
Louis is a dangerous murderer but as a lawyer of the client, he gives him the information that
will not save him from the criminal offense4.
Morally, Mick Haller is an ethical bind and is considered as the solution for the client’s
character but this is bound within the limits of the law. The film is very correct by stating that
privilege should be held by the client but not the attorney5. Besides, the film states that the
attorney must keep the client more confidence regardless of the crime accused of. In this case,
Mick Haller does the opposite of what he is supposed to do6. He uses his moral crime defense
skills to cheat the judge to get more money from the client. This is the wrong way of practicing
the law negatively and for personal gain. Morally he is lier and greedy because he does now care
about the paid that the client would go through his practice7. This firm takes business, especially
in California8. The professional and the business code 6068 (e) (1) gives the fact that the attorney
3 Mark Aaronson, ‘Be Just to One Another: Preliminary Thoughts on Civility, Moral Character,
and Professionalism’ (1995) 8 St Thomas Law Review 113–55.
4 Kathleen Browe, ‘A Critique of the Civility Movement: Why Rambo Will Not Go Away’
(1994) 77 Marquette Law Review 751–84.
5 Monroe H Freedman, ‘Personal Responsibility in a Professional System’ (1978) 27 Catholic
University Law Review 191– 205.
6 Thomas Shaffer, ‘The Legal Ethics of Radical Individualism’ (1987) 65 Texas Law Review
963–991.
7 Connelly, Michael. The Lincoln Lawyer: A Richard and Judy bestseller. Hachette UK, 2019.
8 Nortrup, Jack. The education of a western lawyer. The American Journal of Legal History 12.4
(2018): 294-305.

Surname3
is supposed to maintain inviolate of the confidence especially to him/herself to maintain the
secret beyond the case of his or her client. Based on this rule, confidentiality is considered to be
the key factor that should have been seen in Mick Haller's reactions to the matter. This rule
shows that the attorney is supposed to be very serious about the case of the client and with no
other hided personal agenda to benefit from the case9.
The greedy of Mick Haller violates these sections because he does what it takes to make
sure he extracts all coins from the client. This is followed by the misleading statement to the
judge who is against how he should use the moral frameworks in practice of the law10. Based on
the ethics of care, three elements should be shown by the lawyers in their practice11. The first
obligation which was violated by the Mick Haller in his moral frameworks in practicing law
includes taking the holistic point of view of the problem and the client12. The other ethical
standards that were supposed to have emulated by the Mick Haller are emphasizing on a sober
discussion without misleading the judges and clients on actions to be taken. This should be a
moral conversation between the judge and the lawyer that should be aimed at favoring the lawyer
but the side of the client. This should be applied by the lawyer even in the face of criminal
charges and death. In the film, without the permission of the Roulet Haller was not is the
9 William Simon, The Practice of Justice: A Theory of Lawyers’ Ethics (1998) (excerpts).
10 Anthony Kronman, The Lost Lawyer – Failing Ideals of the Legal Profession (1993) 53–108.
11 Tim Dare, The Counsel of Rogues? A Defence of the Standard Conception of the Lawyer’s
Role (Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2009) 1–14.
12 Anthony Kronman, ‘Living in the Law’ (1987) 54 University of Chicago Law Review 835.

Surname4
capability to testifying against the Roulet through the court of rule neither could he be able to
disclose the information he knew to the detective police or any other people13.
There are a lot of exceptions to confidentiality but they do not apply in this film based on
the moral frameworks of the Haller. Following the fact the film reflects the California setting,
Roulet in the movie reflected the behavior of being a terrible killer but he was careful about
threatening other people. This was a very clear indication of the planned future crime which was
covered and protected by the actions taken by the Haller. In this case, the hands of the Haller
remained tied together. It is so unfortunate that the solution by the Haller is not free from the
ethical issues. The biggest moral framework issue is that the Mick Haller is not in a capacity to
disclose the confidential information to Margaret and Gloria. Haller has committed the ethical
frameworks after providing the promises regarding the recommendation of the Val Valenzuela
bail of the bond services. Based on the practice of the law, this has happened because he was
recommended attorney for Roulet but it does not go within the rule of law. Based on the rule 1-
320 section B, a member should not be compensated, promised or given anything of the value in
place of person...for the aim of giving a recommendation or giving promise of anything of the
certain value to person. This rule of the law in the reflection of the moral reflection of the Haller
moral frameworks gives the insights that Roulet had specifically requested Mick Haller and
therefore, Valenzuela was just attempting to have the security of recommendation for the bail
bond service. In this case, the Haller was not incapacity to know that at times he had struck a
deal with Valenzuela. It is as well so unfortunate that Haller had contracted the gang biker and
insight the assaulting of the Roulet. This is a very obvious crime that Haller used his Moral
13 Reid Mortensen, ‘Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts’ (2015) 27 Sydney Law Review 289–
322.

Surname5
decay to favor his demands in the application of the law14. This is taking law in one's hands and
big irony based on the professional title of the Mick Haller. Without sounding too good about the
film, this was one of the interesting court proceedings which were filed with a nice twist. This
resulted in getting the right details of the legal right15.
In this film, it fact that Haller is readily defending his profession based on the sanctity by
imposing the critics on prosecuting attorney for going beyond his demand and the justice system.
This is one fact that indicates that Haller acts outside the justice system. It is clear that the film is
good of one does not realize the impression of the mistakes by Haller who is just playing around
and twisting the justice system to favor his needs. He tries his witty moral capacity to conflict
with the attorney who most time uses the moral actions and practices the legal questions to get
the truth of the court ruling. In this case, he tries to seal the loopholes where the truth can be
extracted and brings a nightmare as much as possible within the court system.
Question B
In opinion, I believe Mick Haller is not the right framework for contemporary legal
practices. The actions done by the Haller who represents the criminal defense lawyer is that he
breaks the ethical rules set in any court ruling. The Haller was after tampering with the evidence
and creating confusion for the judges. This is very wrong and should not be emulated in the court
of law. Justice is a key factor that should be served to all clients in the court of law. Although
Haller was a defense lawyer in the crime issues, it is very clear that he is good at twisting the
14 Rosenberg, Norman, Young Mr. Lincoln: The lawyer as super-hero. Legal Stud. F. 15 (2011):
215.
15 Hill, Frederick Trevor. Lincoln the Lawyer. Fred B Rothman & Company, 2016.

Surname6
truth. The fact that he knows the truth about the crime issues he was supposed to defend his
client more openly and honestly. He was after twisting and manipulating the justice system in
favor of his preferences. In more scenarios in the film, he is pretender since he sets and insights
the beating of the Roulet. This action is a crime by itself and should be practiced in any court of
law. It is even against the ethical obligations of the people serving justice to the clients. I think
this practice is against the rights and democracy of the citizens in any court of law and if the
same is emulated, this means only the favored one might be criminals.
The fact the Haller is on his duty to defend in the criminal issues, in the case of the
privilege this does not apply. I think the truth is that breaking the ethical rules is not a crime
simply because it is broken by the criminal defense lawyer but in the case of the privilege, this
can not be applied at all. This is so because in this case, the client has already waved for the
same. That is confounded since that is continuous wrongdoing. Nonetheless, there's no danger of
damage to anybody in that situation, so no, the lawyer would not need to uncover anything.
Remember, in any case, that the client in that situation isn't a respondent all things considered.
Except if uncovering the criminal's area would implicate the client, at that point the court could
force the client to affirm. If the client can't, at that point the court could hold the client in disdain
and have the person in question imprisoned until the person affirmed. The indictment commits to
unveil proof to the resistance and I envision that incorporates proof that the arraignment chooses
not to use in preliminary because such proof may excuse the blamed. Supposedly, the resistance
isn't under any commitment to unveil anything because any proof the protection gathers
throughout their examination could be secured under legal counselor-client benefit. If a legal
lawyer was to reveal proof in regards to an outsider and unveiling that proof couldn't implicate
his client then maybe he may have the option to disclose that data. It depends. On the off chance

Surname7
that it was just an issue of passing on something his client disclosed to him then it would be
viewed as gossip if his client wouldn't affirm himself. Moreover, I figure it would disregard the
soul of legal advisor-client benefit if a legal counselor passed on anything a client let him know.
At last, it isn't the lawyer's business to be the judge and jury.
The lawyer's job is to be an energetic and faithful promoter in an antagonistic framework.
Haller's obligation of privacy didn't expand that far, no. California Rule 3-100 gives that "Apart
may, yet isn't required to, uncover classified information identifying with the portrayal of a client
to the degree that the part sensibly accepts the exposure is important to forestall a criminal
demonstration that the part sensibly accepts is probably going to bring about death of, or
significant real damage to, a person." The way that a client was by and by carrying out
wrongdoing against the lawyer would most likely qualify.
It's been an entirely prolonged period since I saw the motion picture; however, as I review Haller
didn't call the police because Roulet was compromising him, not due to the obligation of secrecy.
Except if I'm mixed up, to some degree incidentally Haller could presumably have beaten Roulet
to a ridiculous mash with his homerun stick without even a second's pause only for breaking into
his home (also subtle provocations against Hallers' family). Conjecture Haller is too pleasant to
even think about considering that (and/or he just dreaded he wouldn't pull off it since it may look
like Roulet was in his home since he was welcomed over). Even though I do need to solicit if
Haller has the alternative of giving private data to the police to forestall hurt going to an
individual, could that not matter to this case here? A valid example of his other client is in prison
for a wrongdoing he didn't submit, and I would believe that "illegitimate detainment" would fall
under "substantial mischief". Truly I think Haller ought to have quite recently gone to the judge

Surname8
and clarified the entire thing. Possibly get some sort of authoritative record drawn up for the
judge to sign first to cover his bases and secure himself.