Tournament: University of Texas | Round: 1 | Opponent: ALL | Judge: NA
Terms like ought don’t make sense unless they’re contextualized to the situation at hand. Thus the only coherent conception of ought is one that is based on the functions of the object being described. (G.E.M Anscombe ) 

Good and Bad are also Attributive Terms, we Can Only Contextualize Them Based on Assumed Purpose.
(Geach, P.T. “Good and Evil.”) 

Thus the standard is maintaining the functionality of the word Ought

I contend that A Lawyer exists to Protect a Client's Rights, and in being a “Good” Lawyer, he/she needs to have Attorney-Client Privilege.

1 . A Good Lawyer Puts as Much Time and Energy as Possible Into Their Client Since They Have the Ability to Drastically Alter The Client's Circumstances.
( Fried, Charles. “The Lawyer as Friend: The Moral Foundations of the Lawyer-Client Relation” The Yale Law Journal. Vol. 85: 1060, 1976 ) 

And, ACP is Necessary for a Lawyer to Effectively Do His/Her Job. If one side had full access to any form of relevant secret, the necessity for a good lawyer goes away.
(Noonan. John T. Jr. “The Purposes of Advocacy and the Limits of Confidentiality.” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 64, No. 8 (Jun., 1966), pp. 1485-1492 ) 

I would run this with off cases depending on the round. The alt for this was a version of a cap K or a Functionality Systems CP.