Final answer:
A subordinate lawyer may refer to the 'Nuremberg defense' in the context of following orders, but within the legal profession, ethical obligations require a lawyer to refuse instructions that are unethical or illegal. Legal precedents emphasize the duty for ethical practice over following superior's orders.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question asks whether a subordinate lawyer can invoke the "Nuremberg defense" as justification for their actions, particularly in cases where the lawyer was following orders which may be considered unethical or illegal. The Nuremberg defense is based on the principle that individuals are obliged to follow lawful orders from their superiors, but also have a duty to refuse orders that direct them to commit crimes or acts that violate fundamental human rights.
Applying this to the legal profession, a subordinate lawyer does have an obligation to follow lawful instructions from senior lawyers within their firm. However, the legal profession also imposes a set of ethical obligations that must be balanced against these instructions. For instance, cases such as Glasser v. United States demonstrate the need for a lawyer's loyalty to their client without conflict of interest, upholding the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
In special circumstances, such as those involving war crimes as seen with the Nuremberg Trials, invoking a version of the Nuremberg defense could be conceivable. However, in the regular practice of law, unethical conduct commanded by a superior does not absolve a subordinate lawyer from their moral and legal responsibilities. Lawyers are obliged to refuse to carry out instructions that are unethical or illegal, as reinforced by various legal rulings such as Strickland v. Washington and Padilla v. Kentucky, highlighting the importance of competent and ethical legal representation.