Article
Jun 30
Back

DETERMINANTS OF MORAL BELIEFS OF LAWYERS IN SERBIA

Miljan Savić

10.5937/AnaliPFB2002145S
ABSTRACT /

Examining of the moral beliefs of current and future members of the legal profession is an important step toward properly understanding and defining the factors that influence their formation and change. This paper presents an analysis of the moral beliefs of different categories of legal professionals in Serbia, using factor analysis (principal components analysis) on a sample of 325 respondents, attorneys at law, legal trainees, and students. The impact of socio–demographic factors (gender, age, position, and length of service) on moral beliefs is analyzed. We present areas and norms where the greatest discrepancy between beliefs and the Code in force exists. The most important findings indicate that respondents’ age and work experience directly influence stricter ethical beliefs when it comes to certain types of unethical behavior.

DOWNLOAD COMPLETE ARTICLE /
Serbian (cyr)   Serbian (lat)  
REFERENCES /
  • Akman, Vedat. 2011. An Empirical Analysis of the Gender and Age Factors Effecting Ethical Perception of Lawyers in Turkey. International Journal of Business and Social Science 2(16): 199–204.
  • Armstrong, Mary Beth. 1987. Moral Development and Accounting Education. Journal of Accounting Education 5(1): 27–43.
  • Bukvić, Aleksandar. 2007. Načela izrade psiholoških testova. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike.
  • Burbank, David D., Robert S. Duboff. 1974–1975. Ethics and the Legal Profession: a Survey of Boston Lawyers. Suffolk University Law Review 9: 66–117.
  • Cabrillo, Francisco, Sean Fitzpatrick. 2008. The Economics of Courts and Litigation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Edgar Pub.
  • Charles, Jennifer L.K., Patrick V. Dattalo. 2018. Minimizing Social Desirability Bias in Measuring Sensitive Topics: The use of For­giving Language in Item Development. Journal of Social Service Research 44(4): 587–599.
  • Chung, Jane, Gary S. Monroe. 2003. Exploring Social Desirability Bias. Journal of Business Ethics 44(4): 291–302.
  • Daicoff, Susan. 1996. (Oxymoron?) Ethical Decisionmaking by Attorneys: An Empirical Study. Florida Law Review 48: 197–261.
  • Dragićević, Čedomir. 2002. Statistika za psihologe. Beograd: Centar za primenjenu psihologiju.
  • Draugalis, JoLaine R., Cecilia M. Plaza. 2009. Best practices for survey research reports revisited: implications of target population, probability sampling, and response rate. American journal of phar­maceutical education 73(8): 1–3.
  • European Comission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). 2018. European judicial systems Eficiency and quality of justice. Stras­bourg: Printed at the Council of Europe.
  • Emerson Tisha L.N., Stephen J. Conroy, Charles W. Stanley. 2007. Ethical Attitudes of Accountants: recent Evidence from a Practitioners’ Survey. Journal of business Ethics 71: 73–87.
  • Etienne, Margareth. 2005. The Ethics of Cause Lawyering: An Empirical Examination of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Cause Lawyers. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 95(4): 1195–1260.
  • Eynon, Gail, Nancey T. Hills, Kevin T. Stevens. 1997. Factors that Influence the Moral Reasoning Abilities of Accountants: Implications for Universities and the Profession. Journal of Business Ethics 16: 1297–1309.
  • Holmes, Vivien, Tony Foley, Stephen Tang, Margie Rowe. 2012. Prac­ticing Professionalism: Observations from an Empirical Study of New Australian Lawyers. Legal Ethics 15(1): 29–55.
  • Howitt, Denis, Duncan Cramer. 2011. Introduction to Statistics in Psy­chology. 5 ed., Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
  • Koocher, Gerald P., Patricia Keith–Spiegel. 2016. Ethics in psychology and the Mental Health Professions. 4 ed., New York: Oxfort University Press.
  • McNeeley, Susan. 2012. Sensitive Issues in Surveys: Reducing Refusals While Increasing Reliability and Quality of Responses to Sensitive Survey Items. 377–396. у Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences, ed. Gideon Lior. New York: Springer.
  • Mrakovčić, Marko, Danilo Vuković. 2019. „Unutarnja“ kriza pravosuđa? Stavovi pripadnika pravničkih profesija o pravosuđu u Hrvatskoj i Srbiji. Politička misao 56(1): 75–105.
  • Nicolson, Donald. 2005. Making lawyers moral? Ethical codes and moral character. Legal Studies 25(4): 601–626.
  • Pepper, Stephen. 1999. Lawyers’ Ethics in the Gap between Law and Justice. South Texas Law Review 40: 181–205.
  • Perry, Gregory M., Patricia A. Duffy, Clair J. Nixon, Lindon J. Robinson. 2005. An Exploration of Factors Influencing Ethical and Unethical Behavior in Negotiations. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 37: 1–20.
  • Perry, Joshua E., Ilene N. Moore, Bruce Barry, Ellen Wright Clayton, Amanda R. Carrico. 2009. The Ethical Health Lawyer: An Em­pirical Assessment of Moral Decision Making. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37(3): 461–475.
  • Petrović, Nikola M. 2013. Profesionalna etička uverenja i postupci kliničkih psihologa u Srbiji. Doktorska disertacija, Filozofski fakultet, Univerzitet u Beogradu.
  • Pope, Kenneth S., Melba J. T. Vasquez. 2007. Ethics in Psychotherapy and Counseling: A Practical Guide. 4 ed., New York: Jossey-Bass.
  • Pope, Kenneth S., Barbara G. Tabachnick, Patricia Keith-Spiegel. 1987. Ethics of practice: The beliefs and behaviours of psychologists as therapists. American Psychologist 42(11): 993–1006.
  • Prentice, Robert A. 2015. Behavioral Ethics: Can It Help Lawyers (And Others) Be Their Best Selves? Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 29: 35–85.
  • Republika Srbija, Republički zavod za statistiku. 2019. Visoko obrazovanje 2018/2019. Beograd: Republički zavod za statistiku.
  • Vuković, Danilo. 2019. Advokatura u Srbiji: rezultati empirijskog istraživanja. Branič 130(1–4)/2017: 103–113.
  • Vuković, Danilo, Valerija Dabetić, Samir Forić. Prihvaćeno za objav­ljivanje. Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, у Lawyers in Society – 30 Years Later, eds. Abel Richard et al. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
  • You, Di, Yukiko Maeda, Muriel J. Bebeau. 2011. Gender Difference in Moral Sensitivity: A Meta-Analysis. Ethics & Behavior 21(4): 263–282.