I’m the moral agent.
The lawyer is the final arbiter.
But when it comes to making a decision on your behalf, what do you do if your lawyer says: “I’m sorry, we don’t have the resources to take the case to the courts”?
What you need is an ethical agent.
And I can help you get it.
I’ve spent the last 10 years working in the legal profession, and I’ve found that ethical agents have one major difference from traditional lawyers.
Ethics agents are not bound by any laws.
They are free to decide how the case is to be settled, and they are free not to be swayed by the emotions of the litigant.
For example, I’ve worked in a number of different cases in the last three years, and the lawyers I’ve been representing have always been very straightforward and honest with me.
This is because ethics agents are able to see through the fog of emotions and see how a case would be resolved if they had access to the facts.
In many cases, a case will be decided by a jury of the people, not the lawyers.
The ethical agent also has the power to influence the outcome of the case.
For example, the lawyer could suggest that the trial be adjourned.
Or the lawyer might suggest that you be allowed to testify at your own trial.
Or perhaps the lawyer can suggest that if you are not prepared to plead guilty, you can still be held responsible.
I’ve also found that when an ethical lawyer is representing me, they do what they say they will do.
I always try to negotiate the best possible settlement and settlement terms.
This is because the ethical agent is free to negotiate a fair deal, and it gives the client the assurance that they will not be treated unfairly.
In other words, the ethical lawyer has every right to make a good-faith offer to you, and if it’s not acceptable, then the ethical client is entitled to refuse to negotiate.
This gives me great confidence in my ethical agent’s decision.
As you know, the lawyers are the arbiters in most of our legal disputes.
But the lawyers also have the power of law.
They can decide what kind of evidence, which witnesses, and what evidence will be introduced.
This power is often given to them by the judge, but it can also be given by the ethical director of the office.
This director is the lawyer who has negotiated the deal.
If I have a conflict of interest, I can withdraw my consent to the use of the lawyer’s advice.
However, it is important to remember that the ethical agency is the one who is in charge of the agreement.
So if I do not want to accept the lawyer to represent me, or if the lawyer is not acting as a good ethical agent, then I can always withdraw my agreement.
I’m not the only one who has to do this.
It’s called a “voluntary separation”.
Sometimes it is best to make an appointment with the lawyer before making an appointment to the judge.
If you’re dealing with a difficult dispute, the appointment can be a good idea.
The court is likely to be less inclined to make the appointment, but there’s also a risk that the court will not want a conflict between the parties.
It is also worth having a lawyer contact you about the issue in advance.
This way, you know exactly what you’re getting into.
If you are still not sure about the lawyer, or your case, I encourage you to contact the ethics director and ask them for advice.
My experience of working in a legal case shows me that a good lawyer will always tell you the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be for you.
So if you’re not sure, ask your ethical agent if they can help.