Inquiry into How Judges and Advocates Experience Good Faith and Civil Obligations within Digital Legal Practice

Abstract

Civil law, as a foundational domain of legal science, regulates the moral and contractual relationships that structure social and professional interactions. Within this field, the concept of civil obligation has evolved from a purely legal construct into a multidimensional phenomenon that reflects human morality, justice, and ethical responsibility. Despite extensive theoretical exploration, previous studies have largely neglected the lived experiences of legal actors, leaving unanswered how judges and advocates interpret and embody the principle of good faith in their professional practice. This research addresses that gap by applying an interpretative phenomenological approach to uncover the experiential meaning of legal obligation as understood and enacted by civil law practitioners. Data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with judges and advocates, then analyzed using thematic and hermeneutic interpretation to identify the essence of participants’ moral and legal consciousness. The findings reveal that civil obligation is experienced as a moral encounter shaped by empathy, reflection, and relational understanding, rather than as a mere codified duty. These specific experiential elements demonstrate how good faith becomes a concrete professional practice, influencing case interpretation, argument strategies, and the prioritization of fairness over strict formalism. Participants’ narratives highlight the coexistence of legal formalism and moral intentionality, underscoring the inseparability of law and ethical awareness. These insights contribute to a more human-centered comprehension of civil law and suggest that phenomenology offers a powerful framework for examining justice as a lived moral experience within legal practice.