![](https://redline-s3-production.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/styles/home_page_blogs/public/2024-06/StockCake-Corporate%20Track%20Race_1717197268.jpg?VersionId=7FHrBxqpH0FoQb.0NLzGugxcjQcAvdTM&itok=iIja8Unm)
From Charles Silver, A Private Law Defense of Zealous Representation, U. of Texas Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 638 (2020):
Moral philosophers object to the ethic of zeal, also known as the fiduciary duty and the principle of partisanship, because it requires lawyers to ignore any adverse effects that lawful actions beneficial for clients may have on third parties. For example, when representing a landlord, a lawyer may not refrain from evicting a tenant family that is behind on the rent for fear that the children will wind up on the street. Because harms inflicted on third parties normally bear on moral assessments, philosophers contend that lawyers who ignore them are amoral, immoral, or morally stunted.