In this paper the author will attempt to answer a question of what honesty and diligence mean in the profession of a lawyer, as well as what traits should be possessed by an honest and diligent lawyer. When analysing these two terms, references will be mad to philosophical texts and codes of practice for legal professions. It is repeatedly stressed in the paper that both honesty and diligence are principles without which lawyers can not properly per form their professional duties.
PL
W poniższej pracy zostanie podjęta próba udzielenia odpowiedzi na pytanie, czym jest uczciwość i rzetelność w zawodzie prawnika oraz jakimi cechami powinien charakteryzować się uczciwy i rzetelny prawnik. Przy analizowaniu tych dwóch pojęć zostaną przedstawione odwołania do tekstów filozoficznych oraz kodeksów zawodowych zawodów prawniczych. W pracy wielokrotnie podkreślane jest to, że zarówno uczciwość, jak i rzetelność są zasadami, bez których prawnik nie może właściwie wykonywać swoich zawodowych obowiązków.
The contemporary truth which applies to journalists (as required by the Council of Europe standards and domestic law) reflects differences between the essence and criterion of Aristotelian truth (material truth – veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus – ad Aristotle, The Metaphysics IV.7. [1011b 26‒27]), and its practical implementation (objective truth – in medio stat veritas – ad Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics II.7. [1108a 19‒20]). A journalist is obliged to reconstruct the objective truth (the truth ascertainable by a man who meets the Roman law standard of diligentia boni patris familias, here referred to as diligence expected of a responsible journalist) and not the material truth. Nonetheless, a substantial discrepancy between this journalistic truth and the material truth will constitute a sufficient reason for statutory rectification. As regards the assessing statements, as well as the satirical ones, the proof of truth is only required if the assessment is a conclusion derived from descriptive statements, i.e. the factual basis, and that conclusion must be logical (proportional and therefore just). Satire may not contain words commonly considered as offensive. If a satirical statement is to enjoy the legal protection, it cannot amount to a mere personal attack. Regardless of the fact that satire is a negative assessment and an exaggerated one, it must derive from application of facts, meaning that it must reflect the reality and in that sense it can neither attack human dignity nor contain any discriminatory statements, as confirmed by the latest case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Analogical conclusions can be reached upon reading the works of Romanian satirists, for instance Horace.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.