Honesty in the Halls of Justice: Lincoln’s Lesson for Lawyers
5.6.2025
Honest Abe and Attorney Ethics
Abraham Lincoln, often called America’s greatest president and introduced to schoolchildren as “Honest Abe,” started his career as a lawyer, a profession far from being renowned for honesty.
In fact, honesty in the courtroom was a core tenet for Lincoln, who, over two decades, became known as one of the most able trial attorneys in the state of Illinois. Lincoln worked in the trenches with clients ranging from accused murderers to major railroads.[1] There was certainly no shortage of business or variety of cases. Lincoln represented a wide range of clients, from the common farmer to big corporations like railroads, with a versatility few could match.
The reality was that, in addition to his exceptional knowledge of law and debate skills, Lincoln really was uncommonly honest. The schoolbook story about young Lincoln working in a store and walking 6 miles to return a quarter overpaid by a customer – that happened.[2] This was one of several incidents that earned young Abraham Lincoln a reputation for uncommon integrity. And in a courtroom setting, integrity can become somewhat complex.
One decision Lincoln had to make from time to time was what to do when it became clear to him that his client was wrong. Today’s attorneys have detailed rules and discussions to help them understand their professional responsibilities. Lincoln did not. “Honest Abe” had to struggle through it, guided only by his moral compass.
How Abraham Lincoln dealt with these decisions stands as a lesson attorneys should study, both as an example of moral conduct and to understand how law practice has evolved.[3]
People v. Patterson
Lincoln’s dilemmas came front and center in a murder trial, People v. Patterson. Believing Patterson, the defendant, was innocent, Lincoln joined two other attorneys in representing him. But as the case got underway, the state’s attorneys presented evidence that convinced Lincoln – if not the court – that the man was guilty.[4]
As the public packed the courtroom to witness Lincoln’s famous skills, the lawyer known for honesty demonstrated a lackluster defense that disappointed the crowd and the defendant.[5]
Finally, Lincoln confronted the other two defense attorneys and asked them to take over. Lincoln reportedly said in response, “It is my opinion that the best thing we can do for our client is to have him plead guilty to the lowest punishment.”[6]
Still, they insisted Lincoln present the closing arguments, which turned out to close a conviction for Patterson. Henry Whitney, one of the other two attorneys, wrote, “His logically honest mind chilled his efforts. While he made some good points, the honesty of his mental processes forced him into a line of argument and admission that was very damaging.”[7] Lincoln didn’t abandon his client entirely but failed to muster his famed rhetoric effectively.
In a similar case with Whitney involving manslaughter, Lincoln again lost all spirit after hearing the prosecutor’s witnesses. He was again unable to give a compelling closing argument, resulting in his client’s conviction. Whitney described Lincoln’s behavior as “atrocious,” not a word commonly associated with Lincoln, at least outside of politics.[8]
Lincoln agreed. Again, while his honesty prevented him from acting as a zealous advocate, it allowed him to recognize and admit that he had failed as an attorney. Overcome with guilt, he petitioned the governor for a pardon and got it, freeing his convicted client from prison.
In several other cases, Lincoln abandoned his client mid-trial. In one instance, witness testimony showed Lincoln’s client had committed fraud, causing Lincoln simply to leave the courtroom. When the judge sent someone to bring him back, Lincoln replied, “Tell the judge that my hands are dirty, and I have gone away to wash them.” [9]
Those who worked with Lincoln said that no attorney was stronger when he believed the cause was right and just, but when he didn’t, no attorney was weaker. Lincoln’s courtroom career was a struggle between loyalty to his clients and loyalty to truth.[10] Lincoln is oft quoted as saying, “You must remember that some things legally right are not morally right.” This sentiment, while admirable, underscores the difficulty he faced reconciling his role as an advocate with his morality.
Zealous Advocacy and Modern Legal Ethics
Just as Honest Abe began his legal career, the first article on zealous advocacy was published.[11] This article started a debate that continues to the present day, one that has sided not with making attorneys appear honest but rather loyal.
It wouldn’t be until 1908 that the American Bar Association adopted the Canons of Professional Ethics, finally giving attorneys a roadmap. After amendments, they were replaced in 1969 by The Model Code of Professional Responsibility and in 1983 by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.[12]
These codes delve into the notion of zealous advocacy. The 1969 code says that representing a client “zealously” requires that a “lawyer shall not intentionally . . . fail to seek the lawful objectives of his client through reasonably available means permitted by law. . . .”[13] The word “reasonably” here warrants examination.
If Lincoln practiced law today, his conduct in cases like Patterson would fail to meet the zealous advocacy standard outlined by the ABA. By today’s standards, his conduct could be tantamount to malpractice. Lawyers must represent their client’s interests, not determine guilt or innocence. Making judgments about guilt can compromise a lawyer’s ability to mount an effective defense – the very ethical trap Lincoln fell into.
Provided attorneys do not knowingly present false evidence, they can and must ethically advocate for clients while doubts about guilt remain. Defending potentially culpable clients does not inherently violate honesty or integrity. Lincoln’s inability to continue zealous representation once he had decided to act as a judge rather than counsel, yet still proceeding with representation, would be a breach of modern ethical duties.
People’s perceptions of guilt can be colored by prejudice and circumstantial evidence. If lawyers abandon clients based on their evolving perception of guilt, innocent people could lose zealous representation. Lawyers must remember they rarely have all the facts, and witness testimony may only present part of the picture. A plethora of cases where wrongly accused defendants are convicted based on testimony, only to later be exonerated by hard evidence, perfectly illustrates the need for zealous representation to uncover the truth.
When a case appeared obvious, Lincoln did not wish to dig deeper. He thus may never have become aware of mitigating factors and complexities regarding guilt not presented by the prosecutor. Basing defense decisions on his personal assessments of guilt relied on incomplete information.
By acting as judge in addition to counsel, what Lincoln either failed to grasp or reconcile with was that the adversarial system is designed to uncover the truth and mitigate bias. If defense lawyers abandoned clients they believed guilty, it would undermine this system. Defense lawyers cannot act as judge and jury, as the entire system functions only if lawyers recognize their ethical duty to present the best defense possible.
Lincoln further may not have grasped that the standards of legal guilt and moral culpability are different. Something can be unethical but still fall short of the legal standards for conviction. Defense lawyers ensure the high bar for legal guilt is met before someone’s freedom is taken away.
Lincoln in Historical Context
It’s essential to consider Lincoln’s actions in their historical context rather than judging him anachronistically by modern standards. The philosophical debate over the lawyer’s role and ethical responsibilities has evolved significantly in the century and a half since his time.
Moreover, Lincoln was an exceptional outlier in intelligence, ability to read people and uncompromising moral code. Some 15,000 books have been written about Lincoln – more than any other person in history besides Jesus Christ – because he was an anomaly who led an extraordinary life and held himself to historic standards of discipline.
In his last year practicing law, Lincoln earned the modern equivalent of $180,000, often taking cases for free or telling corporate clients to pay what they thought fair. He was known as the most talented and capable lawyer in all of Illinois.
Given Lincoln’s character, versatility and body of work as a lawyer and politician, it’s likely that if he practiced today, he would adapt and change to conform to modern ethical standards. He followed the rules and made both carefully considered and moral decisions. If he felt continuing to represent a client would violate standards, he would either remove himself from the case, refer it to another lawyer or reevaluate his perspective, considering the reasoning behind the rules.
If Lincoln found modern standards in irreconcilable conflict with his values, he may have entirely reconsidered being a lawyer. But given his brilliance and talents, he undoubtedly would have found another way to achieve great things.
In notes prepared for a law lecture, Lincoln acknowledged the “vague popular belief that lawyers are necessarily dishonest.” He responded that attorneys should “resolve to be honest at all events” and that “if in your own judgment, you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer. Choose some other occupation, rather than one in the choosing of which you do, in advance, consent to be a knave.”[14]
Lincoln can certainly be seen to have confused honesty with prejudice and used the cloak of honesty to choose not to represent clients he had personally judged fully. But this oversimplifies the complex realities and competing imperatives lawyers must balance. Modern ethical standards have evolved to preserve honesty, loyalty, fairness and zeal. Studying Lincoln’s struggles with these dilemmas in the context of his time provides enduring lessons for lawyers still striving to earn public trust.
Alexander Paykin is the managing attorney of The Law Office of Alexander Paykin and chair of the Committee on Technology and the Legal Profession. Sameer Somal is CEO of Blue Ocean Global Technology and cofounder of Girl Power Talk. This article appears in an issue of NYLitigator, a publication of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section. For more information, please visit NYSBA.ORG/COMFED.
Endnotes:
[1] John P. Frank, Lincoln as a Lawyer 25 (1961).
[2] Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years 31-63 (1926).
[3] Andrew L. Reisman, An Essay on the Dilemma of “Honest Abe”: The Modern Day Professional Responsibility Implications of Abraham Lincoln’s Representations of Clients He Believed to Be Culpable, 72 Neb. L. Rev. (1993).
[4] Albert A. Woldman, Lawyer Lincoln 179-82 (1936).
[5] Id. at 179-80.
[6] Id. at 181.
[7] Id. at 181-82.
[8] Frederick T. Hill, Lincoln the Lawyer 31 (2006).
[9] Id. at 239.
[10] Woldman 128.
[11] George Sharswood, An Essay on Professional Ethics (2d ed. 1860).
[12] ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (1991).
[13] Id.
[14] Abraham Lincoln, Notes for a Law Lecture, reprinted in Frank 4.
