OF CAUSES AND CLIENTS - 2 TALES OF ROE V WADE

Both scholarly and political concern has focused in recent years on th e interaction between lawyers and clients in public interest practice. Critics claim that public interest lawyers dominate their clients and subordinate their interests to advance their own social and political agendas. In assessing the validity of these claims, we rarely have ac cess to detailed accounts of public interest litigation from both the client's and the lawyer's perspectives. Professor McMunigal relies on two recent accounts of the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, one fro m the client's perspective and one from the lawyer's, to examine the d ynamics of lawyer-client interaction, lawyer attitudes toward client a utonomy and interests, and the effect of these attitudes on the client . He concludes that both accounts support the claims of domination and subordination of clients made by critics of public interest lawyers a nd argues that current legal ethics rules underestimate and inadequate ly respond to the forces that may drive a public interest lawyer to do minate a client and subordinate the client's interests.