This essay presents a moral justification for the current generally accepted amoral ethical role of the lawyer. The justification is premised primarily upon the values of individual autonomy, equality, and diversity. Based upon these values, the author argues that the amoral role is the correct moral stance for the lawyer as a professional, is a “good” role. The essay then responds to two of the most frequent criticisms of that moral stance: the first based upon economic inequality and the fact that lawyers'services must be purchased; the second based upon the absence of the “adversary system” context for most lawyer work. The author then elaborates a serious problem created by the conjunction of the amoral role and the dominant legal philosophy of American lawyers, “legal realism.” If the limit on a lawyer's conduct under the traditional amoral role is the law, then the realist emphasis on the indeterminacy and manipulability of “law” leave the lawyer in a difficult moral position. Finally, a series of possibilities are presented to deal with this problem, the most promising of which is the “moral dialogue” between lawyer and client as an adjunct to the amoral role.

Defendants’ perceptions of the fairness of their criminal processing outcomes have been the stated concern of some criminal justice reformers. Past research has suggested that these perceptions are influenced by characteristics of the outcome received as well as by characteristics of the process through which the outcome is imposed. This analysis tests a theoretical path model of perceived outcome fairness, which examines the relative influence of both outcome and process characteristics, using survey data collected from 619 prison inmates incarcerated in Minnesota and Illinois. The results indicate that factors related to both outcome and process significantly influence sample inmates’ perceptions of their criminal justice processing outcomes and together explain a substantial portion of the total variance. However, two process-related characteristics are found to be the most powerful predictors of perceived outcome fairness. Inmates’ perceptions that they are fairly treated by their lawyer, judge, and prosecutor are the strongest correlates of perceived outcome fairness, followed by the mode of disposition through which their outcomes are imposed; inmates who plea bargain are more likely than those who go to trial to perceive their outcome as fair.

Data from a case study of piecemeal zoning change suggest that the decisions of citizen zoning boards of appeal are neither lawless nor ineffective. The bulk of requests that come before them are for minor dimension or use variances and are typically allowed unless there is local opposition. The proportion of changes granted varies with the degree of clash between a proposed use or structure and the preexisting local land use-the “character of the community” (particularly in single-family residential areas). Expressions of opinion (positive or negative) by current neighbors and other community members are given heavy weight in zoning decisions.

Despite criticism of zoning boards as defective and illegitimate legal institutions and calls for their abolition, they have remained popular and extremely resistant to change. This is because zoning boards have evolved beyond their explicit rule enforcement functions to also play important dispute-settling and community maintenance functions in the contemporary urban setting. These functions of zoning can only be understood in terms of a participatory model of legal process where legal rules serve to identify situations and trigger sociopolitical processes as much as they serve as substantive norms to be enforced.