As I explained in an earlier post, I bought a copy of Owen's Law Quizzer (4th ed., 1914) at a used book store. The Quizzer, which has a series of questions and suggested answers on a variety of legal topics, was designed to assist students in their law studies or bar examinations. Today I'll offer an easy question about pleading the statute of limitations in defense to a suit on a debt.
"A: In foro conscientiae, a defendant who knows that he honestly owes the debt sued for, and that the delay has been caused by indulgence or confidence on the part of the creditor, ought not to plead the statute, and an attorney ought not to advise him to do so. Sharswood, p. 83."
Students of legal ethics -- ok, who am I kidding, legal ethics wonks -- know that well into the 1900s some lawyers considered it unethical to advise clients about the statute of limitations. At best, it was sharp practice.
But notice that it's called unethical in "foro conscientiae," meaning in the "forum of the conscience." That term was typically used to distinguish something that was legally enforceable from something that a decent lawyer would find unconscionable. So the answer distinguishes between law and conscience.
(In a similar vein, I recall being told in the mid-1980s that if the plaintiff's lawyer knew that the defendant had retained a lawyer it was unethical to take the defendant's default if no answer was filed by the due date.)