Why Do Lawyers Behave As They Do? By Paul Haskell. Westview Press, 120 pages, $45.00 (cloth); $18.00 (paper).

A young woman is called to the stand to testify to a mugging she witnessed. As the lawyer for the defendant questions her, the court discovers that she has a prior conviction for shoplifting and a history of alcoholism. Even though the witness was telling the truth when she said she saw the defendant commit the crime, the defendant is found not guilty.

“Discrediting the witness”—or portraying the witness in a bad light—is a common defense tactic used by many lawyers. You’ve probably seen it on television, in a movie, or in an actual courtroom.

But is it morally permissible when the lawyer knows the witness is telling the truth? That is the question Paul Haskell, William R. Kenan professor of law, raises in his new book, Why Lawyers Behave As They Do.

Haskell provides numerous examples of situations where lawyers are permitted to use various forms of morally questionable behavior—strategies such as “discrediting the truthful witness,” and “custody blackmail”—in defending their clients. “In all of these tactics,” Haskell says, “the lawyer is engaging in some form of deception, and in many cases, this deception causes harm.”

But Haskell believes the main problem is not with the lawyers themselves—it’s with the nature of the rules. The traditional approach to law, Haskell explains, has been adversarial: “Lawyers are essentially people you hire to do battle for you against someone else or the State.”

It is no wonder, Haskell says, why lawyers use ploys and tricks to achieve more for their clients than they are entitled to under the law. Haskell writes that the rules as they stand now “permit the lawyer to wear moral blinders. Many lawyers choose not to practice this way, but the permissibility of this style of practice is not disputed.”

Take, for instance, a case of “custody blackmail,” where the husband in a divorce proceeding wants to minimize his alimony and child support payments. To do so, the lawyer advises the husband to demand custody of the children, even though he has no interest in raising them. When the negotiations are made, the wife settles for lower alimony and child support in exchange for exclusive custody. Although the husband is clearly misrepresenting his future plans, this is a commonly used tactic and appears to be permissible under the current professional rules of law.

It’s practices like these that give the public a low opin-ion of lawyers, Haskell says.

One of the difficulties is that the law profession has become more competitive over the years, causing many lawyers to solicit clients through advertising or direct mail.

Until recently, advertising and mailing were considered inappropriate for lawyers. But today it is easy to find a full-page advertisement for a law firm in a phone book or come across a television commercial where a law firm promises to help you get what you deserve if you’ve been injured in an automobile accident.

When lawyers start soliciting business, Haskell says, “it presents moral problems. It’s not easy to ask for business and then exercise restraint.”

“But it doesn’t have to be this way,” Haskell says, “not if the profession dedicated itself to achieving for the client what the law allows, and lawyers’ loyalty to their clients did not extend beyond that.”

And that’s the point Haskell attempts to make in his book—that the practice of law is a public service, where the lawyer’s objective should be providing his client the benefit of the law, not maximizing the client’s gain at another’s expense.