A debate of fundamental importance to the legal profession is emerging about the difference between what some call ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ interpretations of ‘the rule of law’. The thinner approach to the rule of law limits the responsibility of the lawyer to providing the client with what the client wants, provided it’s legal and the lawyer is not aiding or abetting any fraudulent conduct. In the thicker approach to the rule of law the lawyer acts not only as representative of a client, but also considers the public interest in advising the client and in determining whether to represent the client. The debate puts into play competing concepts of ESG (environmental social and governance) issues as part of the overall public debate. The ethical obligations of lawyers remain paramount, but as part of fulfilling those ethical obligations, lawyers are under pressure at both ends of the thick and thin spectrum.

 
What are the consequences for legal practitioners if compliance with the wishes of the client, and with the law, are no longer the only considerations?