Lawyers need a particular ideal that embodies their skills, qualities, and aspirations - a model to emulate, a standard for judging professional development, and a source of pride in being a lawyer. To accomplish this, the legal profession must function within the professionalism paradigm and re-create the lawyer of practical wisdom who serves clients by informing them of all their options in resolving disputes. The most important step in this movement is to recognize that every lawyer ought to have an ethical obligation to counsel clients about alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as an alternative to adversarial proceedings. By enacting this ethical obligation, lawyers will reacquaint themselves and the law with the professional ideal of putting the client first in a meaningful way. Part I of this Article introduces the historically human-focused legal profession, the struggling-to-find-meaning legal profession, and how the emerging professionalism crisis colors the modern legal profession's perspective on the competing paradigms from within which it can function. Next, Part II considers the professionalism paradigm, including an examination of its definition and theory, a description of an ideal lawyer-statesman, a proposal for its implementation, and an evaluation of the paradigm. Then, Part III considers the business paradigm, including an examination of its history and theory, a description of an ideal "Middle Range" approach, a proposal for its implementation, and an evaluation of the paradigm. Following, in Part IV, I argue that we are more likely to revive lawyers' commitment to serve the common good, or at least reduce self-serving behavior, and shape lawyers' character and conduct under the professionalism paradigm. Next, Part V discusses how to recapture the professionalism paradigm through a lawyer's ethical obligation to counsel clients about ADR as an alternative to adversarial proceedings. In addition, Part V considers the functional paradigms of mediation and the adversarial process and concludes that the mediation paradigm will more likely foster client-focused, ethical lawyer behavior and realign lawyers with the professionalism paradigm's common good focus. Finally, Part VI examines the current reception of lawyer's ethical obligation to counsel clients about ADR. Overall, we must first examine the paradigm in which we view ourselves and our profession, and then we must design a system within that paradigm to recapture what we have lost and re-claim our commitment to our clients, to our profession, and to ourselves. It is in the combination of the revival of the professionalism paradigm and the further use of ADR that lawyers will rediscover their sense of self, sense of vocation, and sense of service
