Source: (2012) Nevada Law Journal. 12:333-340.
Jennifer Brown and Linda Wolf do a wonderfully incisive job of drawing
out the promise of restorative attorney discipline.1 In this Comment, I focus
more on the paradoxes described in their essay. I redefine their three main
paradoxes inherent in attorney discipline as the paradox of impunity, the paradox
of injustice, and the paradox of consumerism:
â€¢ The paradox of impunity is that punitive attorney discipline produces
â€¢ The paradox of injustice is that consumers receive less justice when
they suffer injustice at the hands of justice practitioners than when they
suffer injustice at the hands of providers of non-justice goods and
â€¢ The paradox of consumerism is that if victims of justice system injustice
are treated as consumers, they will suffer more injustice.
Like Brown and Wolf, I agree that applying restorative justice to attorney
discipline can help dissolve these paradoxes.
Your donation helps Prison Fellowship International repair the harm caused by crime by emphasizing accountability, forgiveness, and making amends for prisoners and those affected by their actions. When victims, offenders, and community members meet to decide how to do that, the results are transformational.Donate Now