Moral justification (first principles)

The moral justification of being a corporate lawyer (if there ever needs to be such a thing) is as follows:

• Fair competition and market forces raise quality, increase variety and keep prices down; they increase the likelihood of goods and services being value for money.
• Proper regulation of businesses reduces the scope for fraud and corruption, providing comfort to investors who are necessary for businesses to operate and grow.
• Corporate lawyers keep their clients within the regulatory frameworks set by central government and enforced by the law courts and other public authorities.  Such frameworks are in place to protect the client (from claims by its investors or third parties), other businesses (from anti-competitive practices), the end-users and ultimately to save taxpayers' money.

The general justification for lawyers (which often needs to be expressed) is that:

• Lawyers grapple with complex procedures, priorities and issues arising from a client's interest, and inform the client of the best way of achieving its aim. This may include a balancing exercise of risk versus cost-efficiency.
• It is necessary for lawyers to be on both sides of a dialectic argument (or negotiation) to enable the parties to battle out (with equality of arms) an objectively fair and just conclusion (or result), which will be mutually agreeable. 
• Lawyers must ensure that their client is fully aware of the implications of the decisions reached by the law courts or in negotiation, and ensure that these implications are clear in all binding documentation. 

Personally, there should never be any need to justify a job.  Corporate Blawg UK imagines that arms dealers consider that they assist in liberating a nation or in protecting a nation from destroying itself, depending on who their client is.  An unjustifiable job is one that interupts my lunch.