Lawyers and Accountants Once Put Integrity First

NEARLY a year after President Obama signed into law a huge overhaul of financial regulations, little on Wall Street seems to have changed. Regulators appear to be dragging their feet on finalizing the tough new rules that the law, known as Dodd-Frank, authorized them to write. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has yet to get off the ground. State attorneys general are still pressing mortgage servicers for a financial settlement over the widespread fraud and abuse in lending practices.

It will take decades to fully untangle the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, but as our economy fitfully heals, it would be prudent to ask whether lawyers and accountants offer the same protection against corporate misconduct that they once did.

Three or four decades ago, investors and regulators could rely on these professionals to provide a check on corporate risk-taking. But over time, attorneys and auditors came to see their practices not as independent firms that strengthen the integrity of capitalism, but as businesses measured chiefly by the earnings of their partners.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19everson.html?ref=opinion

When was that? Was it before they started advertising, perhaps?

Your OP subject stinks of broadbrush assumption based on profession. Shameful.

It is no longer assumed that ALL, with the exception of a bad apple or two, do.

Enron would not have been possible without the collaboration of Arthur Anderson. The mortgage default swaps, and subsequent housing bubble and collapse, would not have been possible without the collaboration of lawyers and accountants who were more beholden to the company than to the law. Instead of telling the banks what was legal, they were telling them what was possible.

And in doing so they've discredited both professions.

I've met a of of young lawyers practicing civil rights law--defending the poor and the disadvantaged--even though the pay sucks compared to other, more lucrative specialties.

Broad-brushing lawyers as lacking integrity is a disservice to those who are working for social justice and feeds into the RW smears of "trial lawyers."

I had a housemate that was going to law school.
One day he brought home their little law school paper where the top article was a poll among the aspiring lawyers.
Their nmber one concern was their public image. ethics was about number 20.
When I pointed out that if their number one concern was their ethics, they wouldn't have to worry about their public image, he got upset.

All our institutions are run by greedy sociopaths.



-jim

"It will take decades to fully untangle the causes of the 2008 financial crisis"
Many books and movies have covered the subject in detail. Shouldn't be too hard if the will is there.

but I liked it as it showed the movement away, at least for private laywers, not public-interest, I thought that was clear from the article, from a focus on service to one focused more on making greater and greater profits. I also have a legal background and remember a retired lawyer and judge speaking before my 1st year classmates about the dangers of billable hours. He eventually broke into tears. And the role of some accounting firms such as with the Enron scandal are well known.

"Necessarily, the actions of outside professionals were guided by a cautious orientation. I remember one partner advising a bunch of young auditors examining the financial statements of several of the biggest companies in the world, “If you try hard enough, you can always make the numbers add up.” His point was clear: technical compliance alone was not sufficient. Substance mattered.

Recent decades have seen a new model take root: a business plan tied to partner earnings. Obviously, to pay employees more and to increase partner pay to its present, staggering levels, billings needed to grow. Perhaps today’s approach to fee generation by leading law firms was best stated in a recent Wall Street Journal article about partners billing over $1,000 per hour. Said one such lawyer, “The underlying principle is if you can get it, get it.” Imagine a doctor saying that, for attribution, about an organ transplant.

Understandably, corporate clients are reluctant to pay through the nose for advice on how to color safely within the lines. Whereas concern for a company’s reputation on the part of its executives historically served to reinforce the conservative influence of the outside professionals, it is well documented that attitudes have shifted within corporations themselves. One need look no further than General Electric’s no-longer-obscure tax department to see how traditional law and accounting functions have morphed into profit centers."