I have finally been able to read Alice's article, The Problem of Disagreement in Legal Ethics Theory. Although it was written for the theorists, and not for practitioners and judges, I found it fasciinating. In particular, I hope that the theorists will take to heart Alice's essential point, because, as I have said elsewhere, they have a great deal to contribute. Alice says:
"If theory takes its impact on legal practice seriously, then the result of the arguments here is that theorists need not focus on re-affirming or re-articulating the nature of their disagreements, and should instead focus their attention on what follows for individual action or public policy from the norms they articulate. The nature of the disagreement [among] the types of theories is by now well aired, and it is not obvious that much intellectual progress is made through the types of disputes and arguments discussed above. Indeed, there is a real risk that the arguments create a sense of moral emptiness, that theory is pure abstraction and intellect, with nothing of worth to cummunicate to anyone whose conduct might otherwise be influenced by it. More fruitful is th type of analisis that has been done by theorists of the Bibb case, or of the torture lawyers of Washington, where what theoretical norms mean in practice can be elucidated."