Dustin and Melanie (already a lawyer), both single and sweethearts, were so enamored

with one another that they cohabited and produced a child. Both mutually promised to
marry one another, until Melanie fell in love with Butch. Citing Melanie’s betrayal as an
act “contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals,” and the denial of their love
child’s right to be raised in one home by his natural parents, Dustin seeks the former’s
removal from the roll of attorneys.

Dustin seeks custody of the child, but Melanie argues that the best interest of the child
requires that the child should belong to the mother during at least the latter’s tender
years. Dustin cites Melanie’s strong belief in: (a) the justification of abortion in cases of
unwanted pregnancies; (b) the correctness of divorce to free couples or at least one party
from an unhappy and/or trouble-riddled marriage; (c) the legitimacy of contraception to
space child births; and (d) the soundness of euthanasia as indications of moral unfitness
to have custody of a child.

Identify one or two “ills” pertaining to the integrity of the legal profession and
formulate one or two rule/s of law from the perspectives of Fuller and Finnis.

 Arbitrary application of principles of law to further serve the interest of an

individual
o Somewhat correct arguments of both parties
o Stretched to their purpose whatever it may be
 The thin line of morality and rule of law
o John Finnis
 John Finnis is an Australian legal scholar who grew up in Adelaide
before getting a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford. He is currently
professor of law at Oxford. Finnis published Natural Law and Natural
Rights in 1980, and the book is considered a seminal restatement of
the natural law doctrine. Finnis is a practising catholic, and a fair
proportion of his work (in NLNR and subsequent articles) deals with
the relationship between natural law and Christian/Catholic values.
 theoretical reason, which describes what is true, with practical
reason, which describes how to act.