Order Description;

The “adversary system” is the fundamental concept behind American jurisprudence. It is assumed by our system that when you have 2 people on opposite sides who are trying to win, the party that has the truth on its side will ultimately prevail. Of course, as we all know, it doesn’t always work that way; but that’s our system.

Many Continental European systems use the “civil law” method. Under that system, all the lawyers in the case are responsible to help in the “search for the truth.” If one lawyer has information that would help the other side or comes to agree with the other side’s view, he or she has the right and/or duty to say so. Which system do you think is more effective and why? Also, do you see any constitutional problems with applying the civil law system to the U.S.?

For this assignment, in addition to answering the above questions, find at least one case (which can be done most easily from Lexis) in which the limits of the adversary system were discussed or tested. The subject matter of the case itself can be anything, but the focus should be whether an attorney or firm’s responsibility to a client or court outweighs some other “greater” or “moral” responsibility. For this case, please briefly discuss the ethical issue and how the court resolved it.

The writer needs to be familiar with law and have a lexis account to prove he has the proper background.
when information/evidence is discovered that shows a client’s guilt, it does not mean in a Civil Law country that the lawyer will no longer represent him anymore. The difference in that system (from the US) is that they must share and disclose to the opposing counsel all info, so the privilege that representation in the US offers really isn’t there in the Civil law method. It is less about defending and more about finding the truth. I hope that answers what you were getting at with your question.

So you can understand the first assignment a bit more, I’ll offer a breakdown of how to approach it and form the search:

The first Ethics assignment is a bit different than most as it actually wants a regular essay for the first part and also asks you your own opinion (which is unheard of in law!)
First you are asked to write an essay on the two systems of law: Adversary System (USA) and Civil Law (European) and which you think is better. In order to do this you will write a few paragraphs which outline the two systems and describe them so that you can then include which one, based on that information, you believe to be better. Info to include in this first part of the assignment is the role of judges; role of attorneys, rights of the parties, privilege, etc. Compare and contrast the two systems and how they differ. You can get this information from legal journals found via LEXIS or internet websites (which is also different than usual.) Some internet sites to look at are:




After you give your opinion as to which you feel is better and why, you then need to include in the essay any constitutional conflicts that would arise if we tried to apply civil law here in the United States with our existing Constitution. Look at the amendments which give us our individual rights, such as the right to due process, counsel, etc. Be specific as to which amendments would be violated and why.

The second part of the assignment asks you to use LEXIS in order to find at least one case that discuss our Adversary System. The case should be about a moral/ethical dilemma where it needed to be determined if the duty to a client outweighed a “moral” responsibility. You are looking for a US case where the duty to a client based on the Adversary method here in the US is being tested and evaluated. Try this LEXIS search:

SEARCH tab: Choose: Cases, U.S.
Next screen: Check box for: Federal & State Cases, combined
Next screen: In the NATURAL LANGUAGE SEARCH BOX place the terms “Ethical obligation” “assistance of counsel” (exactly as I have them including the quotes.)

Once you find a case and read through it, for the second part of the assignment present the case. This means you write in a narrative form what the case was about, the issue, what the problem was, what the moral dilemma was and how the court decided and why.


Adversary system is evident in the United States legal system. Critics have raised concern over whether the adversary system on whether its objective is to resolve controversies or establishing truth. In essence, parties involved in controversy have obligations of gathering and submitting evidence, present arguments, and call witnesses for testimonies. The primary strength of the system is the fact that the jury and judge have obligations to remain neutral and passive throughout the case proceeding. Judges play a number of roles in adversary system including controlling hearings, assessing presented evidence and making impartial decision when pursuing justice. On the other hand, attorneys have the duty of maintaining client’s confidentiality. To elaborate, the adversary system recognizes the principle of confidentiality as duty to the attorney to the client. However, the principle of confidentiality can be forfeited if clients disclosed confidential information substance to a third party or willingly waive the benefit of confidentiality.

In the civil law system, the judge plays a vital role in a civil hearing. The judge has a duty to read cases and familiarizing with the details of the case. The judge takes the role of jury that includes hearing civil cases on his own, decides facts, apply relevant law, and than pass the reasoned judgment. Additionally, judges in civil law system a number including helping conflicting parties to co-operate, settle cases, encourage parties to consider going for alternative dispute resolution, and control the overall progress of the case. In the civil law system, doctrine of confidentiality is expressed as lawyer’s professional rights. Attorney or clients are obliged to disclose confidential information to the opposing party.

The civil law provides a clear expression of duties and rights to citizens with a primary intention of invoking remedies to defend their stakes. It is also accessible to citizens and simple in applicable in codified jurisdiction. Therefore, the civil law is more effective than the adversary system.

If the United States adopts the civil law, system there would be constitutional problems such as limited protection of individual rights. For instance, an individual would violate the 5th amendment rights that protect US citizens from self-incrimination in a criminal prosecuting. Additional, the civil law would compromise the 6th amendment that provides defendant rights to a speedy trail. Secondly, the adoption of the civil law would encourage juries to deny defendants to challenge a conviction. Thirdly, defendant would be denied rights to access information on the nature of their accusations.

The case, Mitchell v. State, 2014 Del. Lexis 138 (Del. Mar. 21, 2014),   involves an ethical issue where the judge of the trial court of Delaware amended the serious accusation against Mitchell the defendant and the prosecution was accused of misconduct. The defendant was prohibited to produce disciplinary files of officers that contributed to his arrest. Apparently, the defendant lacked relevant foundation. Additionally, the defendant was blocked to get involved in missing evidence. A critical look at the case implies that the trial court allegedly denied the defendant to obtain the needed assistance form an expert that could present concrete evidence.

Mitchell resolved to appeal to the case in the Superior court of Kent County. The appeal entailed a number of violations presented during the trial phases, pre-trial, and investigation. The defendant claimed that the prosecution and police engaged in fabrication of his involvement in his violations. In essence, the theory of Mitchell indicates that the defendant made significant attempt to undermine credibility of witnesses presented by the prosecutor.. The jury found Mitchell guilty of the ten presented charges. The trial judge decided to sentence the defendant to serve 89 years in prison.

 The outcome of the case implies that the judge did not display an act of discretion by declining to review disciplinary files of officers that arrested the defendant. In fact, the defendant appeared to seek impeachment materials with no concrete foundation. The prosecution honored its duty to provide the defendant a fair hearing. The state had a power to suppress the evidence that happened to prejudice the defendant’s stake. The outcome of the Superior court decision implies that the initial narration of the prosecutor did not necessarily have to attract a high level of prosecutorial misconduct since it was an innocent mistake. The prosecutor based his judgment on wrong information presented by the witness. The prosecutor rectified the errors implying that he acted in good faith to conduct the case in a fair way. Therefore, the credibility of the jury remained intact when the court made the verdict.

The case, Mitchell v. State, 2014 Del. Lexis 138 (Del. Mar. 21, 2014), highlights that attorneys have a duty of representing their clients with diligence. The attorney to the defendant claimed that the witness was coached to testify a different testimony contrary to the facts. The superior court reviewed the case and affirmed the decision made by the trial judge that the witness was not coached to testify an induced testimony. The superior court held the attorney did not display any form of misconduct by indicating that the witness testimony was induced. Additionally, it is apparent that the trial was fair and complied with the defendant’s right. The court offered the defendant an effective counsel and a fair trial.

Did you know that effective analysis of concepts requires professionalism in handling academic research Papers? Do no compromise on your grade choose professional Research writers at elitetutorslab.com