Paras, Cayetano v.

Monsod

We must interpret not by the letter that killeth, but by the spirit that giveth life.

Take this hypothetical case of Samson and Delilah. Once, the procurator of Judea asked Delilah
(who was Samson's beloved) for help in capturing Samson. Delilah agreed on condition that

No blade shall touch his skin;

No blood shall flow from his veins.

When Samson (his long hair cut by Delilah) was captured, the procurator placed an iron rod burning
white-hot two or three inches away from in front of Samson's eyes. This blinded the man. Upon
hearing of what had happened to her beloved, Delilah was beside herself with anger, and fuming
with righteous fury, accused the procurator of reneging on his word. The procurator calmly replied:
"Did any blade touch his skin? Did any blood flow from his veins?" The procurator was clearly relying
on the letter, not the spirit of the agreement.

LAWYERS MORALLY, LEGALLY BOUND TO INSURE

PROFESSION'S INTEGRITY
Considering the thousands of lawyers in Arizona and the tens of thousands around the country, the
incidents of attorney misconduct involving questions of honesty and integrity are relatively low.
However, the public's perception of lawyers as dishonest professionals preying on the publics
misfortune seems to be widespread.

Like many states, Arizona has an extensive network of procedures for handling complaints against
lawyers through the office of the State Bar of Arizona. Complaints range from failure to communicate
promptly with a client to a serious breach of trust involving the client's money or property. Our State
Bar does a thorough job of policing complaints, but, obviously, it cannot take action unless a
complaint is brought to its attention. Historically, complaints were generated by current clients,
potential clients or former clients.

In recent years, attention has been directed toward attorneys policing themselves; that is, lawyers
blowing the whistle on other lawyers. The public might find this notion inconceivable, but it is
happening with increasing frequency. This self-policing is not only encouraged, it is required.

The rules of professional conduct governing lawyers include a requirement that any lawyer having
knowledge "that another lawyer has committed a violation of the rules of professional conduct that
raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer must
bring that knowledge to the attention of the State Bar."
Subject to a compelling requirement to protect the confidential information of a client, attorneys not
only are expected but compelled to report serious misconduct to the State Bar. The real irony of the
situation is that a lawyer who fails to blow the whistle on a fellow lawyer also is guilty of misconduct.
The otherwise honest attorney who cannot bring himself to turn in another to the State Bar has, by
his silence, violated the rules of professional conduct.

Lawyers and judges are often in a better position to recognize misconduct, particularly misconduct
involving a lawyer's honesty and integrity. If we are to improve the public's perception of lawyers, we
must exercise good professional and moral judgment in the representation of our clients. We must
adhere zealously to the ethics of our profession, and that includes policing our own ranks. When the
public is protected, everyone benefits, including the legal profession.
Maintaining lawyers integrity:
Message from the IBA President

David W Rivkin, IBA President

I have emphasised throughout my Presidency the important role that lawyers play in
civil society by creating a rule of law and that we as lawyers need to do a better job
explaining this role to the rest of society. No other profession devotes as much of its
time and resources to serving the public interest, through pro bono work and
otherwise. In that regard, it is important that lawyers be seen as pursuing their clients
interests but only in an appropriate manner that reflects the ethical standards of our
profession and our duties to the interests of justice. A recent highly publicised
investigation demonstrated the harm to the image of the profession that can occur
when lawyers are seen as not acting according to those standards.

A Global Witness report on lawyers behaviour received substantial press coverage,

including a long report by the widely watched 60 Minutes television show in the United
States. An investigator from that NGO posed as an advisor to a senior official of a
foreign government seeking to move
anonymously into the US millions of dollars of Presidents E-news
funds that appeared to have been obtained
messages
through corrupt activity. The investigator put this
proposal to lawyers from 13 New York City law January 2015
firms and secretly filmed the lawyers responses.
March 2015
Only one lawyer refused to discuss the matter,
and the others provided to varying degrees May 2015
suggestions on how money could be transferred
October 2015
into the US without detection, largely by using
shell companies or cooperative or less strict November 2015
banks; some even suggested the use of their own
December 2015
law firms bank account.

The advisor never sought formally to retain any of Related

these lawyers, so one cannot know how many of
President's plans for
them would have agreed to be retained for these
2015/2016
purposes. The NGO's methods are likely to be felt
by some to be unpalatable. Nevertheless, many of Anti-Corruption Strategy for
the Legal Profession
the lawyers statements can be seen as aiding and
abetting money laundering. New Yorks ethical IBA guides, rules and other
code prohibits lawyers from counselling or free materials

David W Rivkin takes up

presidency (IBA news release)
assisting clients in illegal or fraudulent transactions, and of course the fact that the
client relationship has not yet been created does not excuse aiding and abetting a
crime. The expos certainly reflects poorly on the legal profession and undermines
public trust and confidence in us as lawyers. It also raises concerns about the
effectiveness of professional ethical rules and training to guard against such behaviour.

While this report focused on New York lawyers, the problem of lawyers assisting
conduct that is corrupt or illegal is certainly more widespread. For example, Global
Witness has also exposed the use of inflated legal fees to move suspect funds from
Papua New Guinea to Australia. It is clear that wherever this behaviour occurs, it
compromises public perception of and trust in our profession.

The IBA takes such questionable conduct seriously and has standards in place and a
number of ongoing initiatives seeking to address corruption and strengthen the rule of
law. These include the Anti-Corruption Strategy for the Legal Profession, Business and
Human Rights Project, and Judicial Integrity Initiative.

The IBAs International Principles on Conduct for the Legal Profession, adopted by the
IBA Council in 2011, articulate common ethical and professional standards across
jurisdictions. These include the principles of independence, integrity, honesty, and
fairness. Importantly, the Principles provide that, while a lawyer shall treat client
interests as paramount, such interests are always subject to the lawyers duties to the
court and the interests of justice, to observe the law, and to maintain ethical standards.
Lawyers should also promote access to justice, so there must be a nuanced balance
between not restricting preliminary meetings with clients and a strict adherence to
these standards and professional, ethical and human rights considerations. In order to
ensure faith in the justice system, lawyers must maintain a high degree of
professionalism and ethical conduct while promoting justice and rule of law.

Our Anti-corruption Strategy for the Legal Profession, conducted with the OECD and
the UNODC, trained more than 1,000 lawyers in more than 35 countries. It culminated
in a number of workshops and awareness-raising events, as well as two major
reports, Risks and threats of corruption and the legal profession and Anti-corruption
compliance and the legal profession. This strategy focuses on methods to manage the
risks of corruption in order to meet the demands and requirements of clients; the role
lawyers play in combatting international corruption; and how international instruments
and extraterritorial legislation apply to the legal practice.

Building on the success of the Anti-Corruption Strategy, in January 2015, I launched

our Judicial Integrity Initiative. An independent judiciary free from corruption is
fundamental to upholding the rule of law and guaranteeing basic human rights in
society. The project seeks, among others things, to make lawyers and judges more
aware of the various ways their interactions are vulnerable to corruption, and how to
prevent and combat such conduct. Responses to the global survey conducted by the
IBA suggest that lawyers may often be the intermediaries in corrupt conduct within
judicial systems. This indicates weaknesses in the rule of law in some countries that
some lawyers are all too willing to exploit. Following the publication of the results of this
global survey, expected in March, the Judicial Integrity Initiative will turn to using that
information to develop and improve practices designed to eliminate judicial corruption.

In addition to the Anti-Corruption Strategy and Judicial Integrity Initiative, we

encourage members to engage with our Business and Human Rights for the Legal
Profession project, and associated reports, including the IBA Business and Human
Rights Guidance for Bar Associations. The IBA is also working on a practical guide for
business lawyers on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
(Guiding Principles), which is likely to be publicly available in June 2016. This initiative
is intended to improve lawyers capacity to consider effectively the relevance of the
Guiding Principles to the advice that they provide to clients in all type of commercial
and business transactions; to encourage the use of the Guiding Principles by members
of the legal profession and provide technical assistance to practitioners and other
interested stakeholders; and to represent positively the legal profession and bar
associations as champions of business and human rights in local and international
fora.

The Global Witness expos is a timely, though unfortunate, reminder of how important
it is for the legal profession to conduct itself in accordance with the highest ethical and
professional standards. To do otherwise can call into question not just the reputation of
individual lawyers and law firms but the legal profession itself. And if the professions
integrity is lost, so is our ability to remain an independent force that protects individual
liberties and the rule of law.

David W Rivkin
President
@dwrivkin

Building brand identity and integrity

19 September 2008

Lawyers Weekly

What's in a name? Potential to attract clients and employees, lower costs, higher levels of
competitiveness ... and more, writes Sue-Ella McDowall.
It is well known that a clear brand identity provides a distinct competitive advantage for businesses across
all sectors. Identity is also a prerequisite for your legal business to be in a position to communicate its
integrity.

The history of law firms and the system of partnerships has meant that legal firms have taken a while to
catch up with other professional services in the use of branding to recruit and retain clients.

Naturally, the legal sector tends to be dominated by professionals who are absorbed in the interpretation
of law and, in most cases, are having their time clocked by the all-powerful 6-minute billing unit.

Work on brand development is not only non-billable but is also creative, time consuming and - as with all
great marketing - somewhat risky. It is no wonder it has taken the legal profession some time to be ready
for modern branding.

There are now so many legal firms making basic branding mistakes that any firm that sticks to the basics
will stand out like a beacon in a sea of sameness, which is exactly what you want when it comes to your
branding.

McDowall has been building brands for more than 20 years and one of the biggest mistakes we see in the
legal sector is that many legal firms do not have a clear brand identity. Some have not even attempted to
brand their business.

It's very common for legal firms to begin branding with their partners' names. The problem with this is
that names almost never help clients connect to the values of a firm, and don't communicate the clear
benefit of one firm over the next.

Moreover, legal firms often brand using partner names by tradition - even though the partner may no
longer work at the firm. Although some firms are so old and well-known that they have effectively
established a "real" brand using partners' names, most firms need to think twice about this identity
strategy.

The most important perspective on any brand identity comes from clients, so it's fascinating to note the
number of existing firms (we estimate as many as 20 per cent) that ignore the fact that their clients have
already abbreviated their firm (partners') names to effectively create their own, client-driven, brand name.
This habit needs to be considered when working on a new brand and - for existing brands - embraced as
part of healthy brand development.

A great brand identity, consistently applied, becomes a mark of integrity. It is an essential core to any
business, and, of course, this is even more important in the field of legal practice.
Integrity in branding is all about standing for something important, and doing so consistently. This
consistency needs to be demonstrated over time, and implemented across each division of the firm.
Clients have always been experts at spotting inconsistencies between what legal firms say and what they
do - but in these days of digital communication, they can pick up inconsistencies more easily than ever.

A brand with integrity needs to be consistent across every layer of a firm, starting with the employees on
the inside, and radiating out to the marketplace and clients.

It is incredibly important that the branding demonstrates a commitment to values and client benefits
which are consistent from deep inside the business, and are carried right through to each client interaction.

It is critical for firms to do the work to understand which aspects of their brand are most appreciated by
clients. In this regard, look for emotional and values-based differentiation, rather than functional areas of
expertise, which can change over time.

A clearly understood brand proposition acts as the anchor for the brand - a clear identity that allows
clients to begin to respect the firm's integrity.

The proven benefits of having a strong legal brand are clear:

- Easier client recognition: Reduces client recruitment and advertising costs so you can grow your
business faster.

- Expressing your competitive advantage: Gives you an advantage over your competitors and protects the
value of your business.

- Expressing your position and space in the market: You become known in the market as standing for and
owning a position that your competitors cannot claim.

- Increased response rates: Tapping client benefits in branding increases the reaction rate from your
activities.

- Lowers costs of communication to clients: Brand consistency can dramatically lower the cost of
communicating to your clients.

- Builds affinity: Great clients love to be associated with a great legal brand.

- Recruitment of new employees: Great staff want to be associated with and work for a great legal brand.

Marketing is no longer considered a back-office support function, but as a "core function," critical to the
growth and success of legal firms. Top firms are making transitions in their approaches to branding,
 recognising their brand is a sophisticated way to engage and obtain a unique, consistent and evocative
status in the marketplace.

Branding is simply the expression of your firm's competitive advantage in everything you do. It is an
expression of your business strategy - not just a logo, nameplate or a brochure. Brand integrity is more
than image - it is the prerequisite to establishing a reputation for integrity, delivering consistent client
value - exactly as promised.

The challenge for legal firms is to make a stand on their point of difference, their values, the benefit they
provide to their clients and their staff, and an effective and successful brand will communicate all this to
clients, competitors, the market and the general public.

Sue-Ella McDowall is the CEO of McDowall creative design company.

Lawyers and Accountants Once Put Integrity First

MARK W. EVERSONJUNE 18, 2011

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

Share

Tweet

Email

More

Save

Indianapolis

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.

When my father finished Harvard Law School in 1948, he went to work at

one of the best law firms in New York. It was an era in which top-end legal
work for the nations biggest companies was handled by a limited number
of firms that drew their entering lawyers from a handful of schools. But that
didnt mean instant prosperity for the new attorney. Earning $3,600 a year,
my dad shared a two-bedroom apartment in Greenwich Village with three
classmates. At the time a United States District Court judge was paid a
salary of $15,000. Today, a judges salary has gone up slightly more than
tenfold, a bit more than the increase in inflation. A new lawyer at the firm
where my father worked, however, is pulling down well over 40 times what
my dad first earned.

I also began my career in New York, in 1976, as an auditor with one of what
was then the Big Eight (now the Big Four accounting firms). Salaries were
increasing, but top-tier accounting and law firms were still operating pretty
much as they always had. To be sure, you lived well. But moving up the
ladder, you didnt expect to get rich. Wealth was reserved for business
owners (and generally for corporate executives), talented investors and
investment bankers who risked their own capital. Ones stature derived
from the respect accorded an independent professional. The mission of the
junior accountant or lawyer was clear to all: help clients adhere to
professional standards and follow the law. Beyond that, do your best to
differentiate your firm based on superior service.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

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 todays 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.

Continue reading the main story

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Understandably, corporate clients are reluctant to pay through the nose for
advice on how to color safely within the lines. Whereas concern for a
companys 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 Electrics no-longer-obscure tax
department to see how traditional law and accounting functions have
morphed into profit centers.

Lawyers and accountants who were once the proud pillars of our financial
system have become the happy architects of its circumvention. Nowhere is
this more the case than in the world of tax law. Companies (and wealthy
individuals) pay handsomely for tax professionals not just to find the lines,
but to push them ever outward. During my tenure at the Internal Revenue
Service, the low point came when we discovered that a senior tax partner at
KPMG (one of the Big Four, which by virtue of their prominence set
standards for the others) had advocated in writing to leaders of the
companys tax practice that KPMG make a business/strategic decision to
ignore a particular set of I.R.S. disclosure rules. The reasoning was that the
I.R.S. was unlikely to discover the underlying transactions, and that even if
we did, any penalties assessed could be absorbed as a cost of doing
business.
 Just what role outside professional firms played in the genesis of the
financial crisis has not been adequately explored. Perhaps it never will be.
But at a minimum, we know that the widespread documentation problems
associated with bank foreclosures demonstrate that in too many instances,
attorneys and accountants abandoned their duties to assure integrity.
Further, it seems unlikely that professionals will, of their own initiative,
return anytime soon to their traditional posts as vigilant sentries
guaranteeing the financial systems integrity.

WHAT should be done? For starters, Congress should take a hard look at
the doctrine of attorney-client privilege as it applies to corporations.
Communications pertaining to patents, or threatened or actual litigation,
should remain protected. But communications about, say, commercial
transactions and financing and even government-mandated filings and
disclosures might not. Simply stated, lawyers will be less likely to stretch
the acceptable to earn a high fee or secure repeat business if their counsel is
subject to more outside scrutiny.

This would no doubt change the way regulators and prosecutors examine
the roles of outside lawyers and law firms when investigating significant
corporate failures a good thing, in my view.

To open this can of worms would touch off howls of outrage from the
American Bar Association and others. Nevertheless, such a debate would be
healthy, especially when policy makers are struggling to find the proper
distinction between the rights and protections afforded companies versus
those granted to individuals, notably in the political process.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

A second idea is for corporations to reassess their compensation practices

for financial and legal executives. Just as some large businesses are moving
to separate the position of board chairman from that of chief executive in
order to provide for stronger governance, companies might also consider
development of a new pay scheme for their financial and legal personnel.
This would mean paying handsome, multiyear fixed salaries to the chief
financial officer, the general counsel and their top deputies but without
offering the opportunity for equity participation. Such an approach would
sharply limit the temptation to inflate shareholder value at the expense of
business substance.
 Big businesses have always sought to gain competitive advantage over
others and certainly to minimize taxes, as have any number of taxpayers.
Fair enough. But we have seen that globalization, business complexity and
an unworkable tax code have obscured the understanding of risk.
Politicians are reviewing our system of corporate taxation none too soon
if our nation is to prosper as it has in the past. We should look at all the
moving parts in our financial system starting with the outside
professionals not just Wall Street and Washington.

Mark W. Everson, the commissioner of the Indiana Department of Workforce

Development, was the commissioner of the I.R.S. from 2003 to 2007.

The honest lawyer

11 July 2011

Murray Landis

Lawyers are supposed to be people of the highest integrity and honesty in their personal dealings. So
what's gone wrong? Middletons partner, Murray Landis, writes.

Lawyers are supposed to be people of the highest integrity and honesty in their personal dealings. So what's
gone wrong? Middletons partner, Murray Landis, writes.

Lawyers are one of the most tightly regulated service providers with statutory and professional obligations to
act honestly and with fidelity in the interests of their employers and clients and as officers of the court? So
why are there so many disparaging jokes about lawyers?

Perhaps it is because those two obligations are actually in conflict. Lawyers, in-house or otherwise, have a
duty to act as zealous advocates of their organisations or clients. For in-house counsel their job involves
finding ways to achieve what their management want and advancing their interests in ways which are lawful.
But what is lawful is not always black and white. Are in-house counsel expected to suppress individual moral
opinions and ethical concerns to be effective advocates for their organisations? Aren't in-house lawyers
supposed to be accountable for what their management team decide to do?

On the other hand, in-house lawyers are expected to be trustees of the legal system, advancing the interests
of justice and truth.

One of the greatest of Australia's High Court Judges, Sir Owen Dixon, once remarked that the pursuit of truth
is not a matter which concerns either the parties to litigation or their personal representatives. The object is
always victory, not abstract truth.

Lawyers are supposed to be people of the highest integrity and honesty in their personal dealings, so that
clients can feel secure in confiding in them. So when a lawyer gets paid to achieve what their organisation or
client wants, even if it involves stretching what the client is legally bound to do or not do, it's hardly
surprising honest lawyer jokes provoke so much mirth.

The problem is that the boundaries of professional responsibility have been eroded. The professional conduct
rules are no more than signposts pointing a general direction to go, not fences which prescribe strict limits on
how far a lawyer can wander from the path.

At the same time the whole notion of ethics in law has been expanded by new statutory concepts of
misleading and deceptive conduct, unfair contracts, obligations to consider the purpose of legislation and not
just its strict words. The courts themselves have expanded concepts of unconscionable conduct.
This places lawyers in a very difficult position advising their organisations about their legal rights, when their
aim can be the exploitation of ambiguities and uncertainty in the law in their own favour.

Is it part of the job of in-house lawyers to help their organisations to avoid obligations which the community
rightly or wrongly believes they should bear?

In-house lawyers are in a very difficult position, they do not have the ability to choose who they act for or to
reject cases or clients they find morally repugnant. Their choice is to resign and find alternative
employment.

Nonetheless in-house lawyers, like lawyers in private practice, are sometimes asked to advise clients how to
sabotage the spirit and integrity of the law occasionally seeking to exhaust the resources of less well funded
adversaries. Helping clients do this turns the legal system into a device for evading the very rules it is
designed to enforce, and worse, using officers of the court to do it.

No wonder depression in the legal profession is higher than in almost any other profession!

An in house lawyer needs personal courage, ethics and skill to have a real role as a moral compass for their
organisation. Unlike the rest of the community, lawyers have a professional obligation to act ethically and
therefore to advise them on the right direction to go and the right thing to do.

A large part of the problem for lawyers is that the professional conduct rules have been designed as a
consumer protection measure to address imbalance in the power relationship between the lawyer and
ordinary consumers of legal services.

For those lawyers who act for large corporations and for in-house lawyers, the professional conduct rules are
often not of much help.

The power imbalance in the relationship is in favour of the client.

In-house lawyers working for large corporations are expected to understand "commercial reality" that is often
nothing more than an exhortation to greed.
 The former Chief Justice of New South Wales, Mr Justice Spiegelman, once said "a market wakes up every
morning with a completely blank mind, like Noddy."

If in-house lawyers are to be professionals, then while they must have regard to the market, they must not
act as if they are part of the market. There is more to being a good lawyer than that.

There is no doubt it is very hard to do the right thing as a lawyer, but as Mr Miyagi said to his young student
Daniel-san in The Karate Kid:

"Must talk

Walk on the road

Walk left side safe

Walk right side safe

Walk middle sooner or later get the squish just like grape

Understand?"

Jurisprudence: Justice, Fidelity & Integrity of Law &

Lawyers
Course Number:
Law 437

Hours:
3

Course Type:
Upper-Level

Writing Requirement:
Rigorous Writing Experience (RWE)

Skills Requirement?:
No
Final Exam?:
No

Description:
We demand justice of our laws, but we know laws often fail to meet this demand. We also demand fidelity to
law of lawyers and judges, sometimes even in the face of law's injustice, and expect lawyers to act in ways
that we would condemn if done by lay people. We seek to justify these worrisome demands by appeal to
notions of professionalism, the adversary system, the rule of law, and democracy. But, is it possible for
lawyers to maintain their own integrity in the face of such apparent conflicts? Can law shield lawyers from
responsibility for the injustice or wrongs it works in the world? Can law itself sustain its integrity and its
claim of respect and allegiance when it does such wrongs? What are we to make for the notion of integrity-
of lawyers and of law-in the morally compromised world in which we live and make a living? These are the
core questions addressed in this course.

Related Courses:

Professional Responsibility

Prerequisites:

Willingness to reflect systematically on personal and institutional aspects of the practice of law.

Integrity

One of the guiding principles of our practice is integrity. It is extremely important to us

that our clients know and trust the lawyers and staff with whom they work. Integrity is
also fundamental to our practice. Our word is our bond.

A Reputation for Excellence

Cohen, Placitella & Roth lawyers understand how valuable it is that judges, opponents,
fellow lawyers and our clients know that we mean what we say. Indeed it is the
indispensable quality of the legal profession.

Serving our Clients and the Courts

C/P/R lawyers have served on the Disciplinary Board of The Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania, been appointed to leadership positions by courts in multi-district and
complex litigation cases, served as court appointed special master and served on the
board of directors of local and state trial lawyer organizations.

OUR LAWYERS C