Last week we established the arguments made in Euthyphro, where Plato presents Socrates as a relentless questioner, refusing to accept vague, circular, or authority-based answers to moral questions. His discussion of piety becomes a model for how we might approach another complex question:
What is good or acceptable behaviour among lawyers in a law firm?
And when does that behaviour cross the line into bullying or misconduct?
We will continue with that discussion. Here’s how each major argument in Euthyphro helps us think more clearly about the culture of law firms.
1. “What is piety?” → “What is good behaviour in a law firm?”
Socrates opens with a simple request: define piety. Euthyphro replies with an example (his own conduct), but Socrates presses for a universal definition.
In law firms, similar dynamics play out:
-
Ask what “acceptable conduct” means, and you might hear examples:
-
“It’s pushing juniors to meet deadlines.”
-
“It’s telling someone when their work isn’t good enough.”
-
“It’s expecting resilience under pressure.”
-
But those are examples—not a definition.
Socratic Insight:
If we don’t define what makes conduct good, we cannot meaningfully distinguish acceptable pressure from bullying, or mentorship from misuse of power.
Like Socrates, we must ask:
-
Is good behaviour defined by its form (e.g., respect, fairness, honesty)?
-
Or by its outcome (e.g., high performance, client satisfaction)?
Without clarity, poor behaviour can hide behind euphemisms like “tough love” or “rigour.”
2. “What the gods love is pious” → “What the firm praises is good behaviour”
Euthyphro next says:
“Piety is what is dear to the gods.”
This is akin to saying in a law firm:
“Good conduct is what the partners value,”
or
“It’s good behaviour if management praises it.”
Socratic Challenge:
Socrates immediately points out that the gods disagree—so how can we rely on what they love?
In law firms:
-
One partner may value aggressive litigation tactics; another may condemn them.
-
One may admire blunt feedback; another may call it hostile.
Result: conduct becomes morally relative, dependent on the taste of superiors.
Socratic Insight:
If acceptable conduct is merely “what the firm’s powerful people like,” then ethics is reduced to politics.
True ethics must be grounded in reasoned principles, not the preferences of the influential.
3. The Euthyphro Dilemma: Is Behaviour Good Because It’s Praised, or Praised Because It’s Good?
Socrates famously asks:
“Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious,
or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?”
In legal culture:
“Is a lawyer’s conduct good because senior lawyers approve of it,
or do senior lawyers approve of it because it is good?”
Option A: Behaviour is good because the firm praises it
-
This reduces morality to institutional approval.
-
Dangerous in firms with toxic cultures, where misconduct is rewarded.
Option B: The firm praises behaviour because it is good
-
This suggests there is a moral standard independent of firm culture—e.g., fairness, dignity, professional respect.
Socratic Insight:
Lawyers should judge their conduct by objective ethical standards, not merely by whether it pleases those in power.
This is critical when addressing bullying:
-
If a partner belittles or intimidates a junior associate and it’s brushed off as “tough training,” the culture might approve—but Socrates would ask: is it actually just?
4. “Piety is service to the gods” → “Acceptable behaviour is serving the firm”
Euthyphro eventually defines piety as serving the gods—a kind of functional role.
In law firms, a similar idea appears:
“Good behaviour is what contributes to the success of the firm.”
This is common:
-
Long hours, high billables, competitiveness, and “handling pressure” are seen as virtues because they “serve the firm.”
Socratic Critique:
Socrates asks: what does it mean to serve the gods? Is it making them better? That would be absurd—they’re perfect.
Similarly, does serving the firm mean sacrificing your wellbeing or others’? Does it justify undermining colleagues for advancement?
If good behaviour is defined purely by its utility to the institution, ethical abuses will be justified in the name of success.
5. Ending in Aporia: Humility, Reflection, and a Call for Cultural Change
Socrates does not offer a final definition of piety. Instead, he leaves Euthyphro in aporia—puzzled, but more thoughtful.
Legal culture often insists it already knows what’s good:
-
“We have policies.”
-
“We have a Code of Conduct.”
-
“We conduct professional development sessions.”
But real reflection requires:
-
Acknowledging grey areas.
-
Listening to those without power.
-
Asking whether our own standards are consistent and just.
Socratic Insight:
Ethical cultures aren’t built by confidence in one’s virtue—but by humility, dialogue, and self-scrutiny.
Conclusion: Socratic Ethics for the Legal Profession
The Euthyphro shows us that authority, tradition, or outcome alone cannot define moral behaviour. Applied to law firms:
-
Bullying is not excused by “firm culture” or justified by results.
-
Good behaviour is not whatever the managing partner approves of.
-
Lawyers must ask: Is this conduct just, respectful, and professionally ethical?
-
True professionalism is rooted not in deference, but in ethical reflection.
Please see below link to case materials which is assumed reading in order to participate in the discussion:
The Internet Classics Archive| Euthyphro by Plato
Discussion led by Adrian Cartland.