From the desk of My Collaborative Team President, Edward S. Sachs, ACP

On Friday I raised the question of where is the line between zealous advocacy required of lawyers and our Collaborative ethical standards of client self-determination. This comes up from time to time in cases and I always struggle with the question. I understand the attorneys need to provide their client with legal advice but how far must they go to protect their client? Once the client is informed, should the attorney acquiesce to their client’s decision? And if the attorney is concerned the client doesn’t understand does that raise other ethical questions? Is the client competent to reach any agreement?

I asked ChatGPT whether zealous advocacy should trump an ethical requirement to respect a client’s right to self-determination. Here is what it said:

Zealous advocacy should never trump an ethical requirement to respect a client’s right to self-determination. Ethical standards in various professions, including law and counseling, prioritize the client’s autonomy and informed decision-making. Zealous advocacy should always be conducted within the boundaries of ethical principles, which include respecting a client’s right to make their own choices, even if those choices may not align with the advocate’s personal preferences. Balancing these responsibilities is a fundamental aspect of ethical practice.

I would like to hear from attorneys. Where do you draw the line? How do you balance your legal rules, procedures and ethical requirements with Collaborative ethical standards?