An Essay on the Civil Commitment Lawyer: Or how I Learned to Hate the Adversary System

Abstract

This article deals with the ethical and moral dilemma facing the attorney charged with the duty of obtaining the release of a respondent in a civil commitment proceeding; a respondent who may well need the treatment commitment would bring. The role of the attorney as adversary and how that role often conflicts with the best interest of his client is examined. It is shown how the question “Would you defend a man in a civil commitment proceeding whom you knew needed medical care?” is an infinitely more difficult one for attorneys than the question “Would you defend a man whom you knew to be guilty?”