Autonomy,paternalism, and institutional interest: why some conflicts can't be waived

This paper asks the question of why, in some cases, a client is precluded from demanding of their lawyer that they act for them and their adversary simultaneously. We accept that in numerous instances a lawyer can act for clients whose interests may diverge (or in some cases do in fact diverge) providing informed consent has been obtained. This paper enquires as to why the line between waivable and non-waivable conflicts is drawn where it is, and examines the theoretical underpinning of the waiver rule and its boundaries. It does so by first looking at the client autonomy argument for allowing waivers. It then turns to explore the paternalistic justifications for rendering a consensual waiver of a conflict inoperative. Finally it looks at those cases where a waiver is not permitted that are left unexplained by paternalism. It argues that paternalism, properly understood, is a legitimate justification for most refusals to accept a waiver of conflict. However, a residual body of cases remain unexplained by paternalism. Those cases are best explained by the propensity of the law and the legal profession to protect its institutional values and interest.     

Making decentralization work: The view from City Hall

The success of decentralization experiments depends ironically on central government—and, in particular, on the character of City Hall initiatives, designs, and administrative organization. Urban administrators were forced to experiment in the dark with decentralization, and their initiatives often traced an erratic, evolutionary course marked by false steps and by serendipity. In particular, programs that looked promising from a City Hall perspective often failed because they were insensitive to street-level behavior. City Hall initiatives have also been hampered by problems of cooperation between citizens and public employees and by coordination within government. Seen in this light, successful decentralization requires a learning process in which citizens and public employees develop strategies for working together on focused neighborhood problems.This article is based on Chapter 8 of my book, Neighborhood Democracy: The Politics and Impacts of Decentralization (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1973).