Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 When I started practicing law in the 1970's, there was a written and unwritten code - a lawyer's word was his bond; shading the truth would land you in deep water, fast; and you never, never, never fib, understate, exaggerate or outright lie to a judge or under oath. Period. When you take your oath as an attorney, you swear (to Almighty God in my day) to tell the complete truth in all your dealings with the Court. The "Boom-boom" 80's, with their runway stock market returns, junk bonds, Michael Milken and the 1987 crash, all happened in part because those codes were being bent and broken. There were paper records of some of the transactions, and some people went to jail and others lost fortunes. Some walked away. Things got even worse in the 1990's, when elected officials equivocated over the meanings of common words in sworn testimony as part of an effort to mislead, conceal and avoid prosecution, and worse. Amazingly, many people laughed and joked; no prosecution followed, and no punishment was imposed. It was all just words, and "he said, she said". And it all went away. We are now in an age when electronic communications, rather than paper files or recollections of conversations, contain the most complete record of people's dealings. Recognizing the change, Courts have established new rules, requiring lawyers to understand fully their client's email and backup systems, to instruct their clients to immediately "freeze" electronic documents when their content may be at issue in a legal proceeding, to instruct their clients not to delete, alter or purge (even through routine file cleaning) data from their systems, and imposing harsh and unforgiving sanctions on lawyers and clients who fail to comply. Corporations involved in litigation who fail to observe these requirements have been fined millions of dollars. Litigants have been punished by limiting their claims or defenses when they purge old emails that may have been relevant to a proceeding. And lawyers who fail to properly instruct their clients regarding their obligations to preserve data, or inaccurately respond to Court orders and subpoenae seeking information, have been sorely sanctioned and disciplined. The rules are supposed to insure the integrity of the system, and are supposed to apply to everyone without exception. Especially lawyers. If one of my clients kept a private email server in their home, and used it to conduct business; and then found itself involved in a judicial inquiry into its business; and then failed to preserve the contents of that server; and then purged the content of that server AFTER being served with a subpoena for its content - they would be heavily sanctioned by the Court. If they were a party to litigation, their claims or defenses would probably be dismissed or heavily limited; they would certainly be fined; and their lawyer would also be sanctioned and fined. No exceptions. A Court would infer that a party who destroys evidence had something to hide. I still feel morally and ethically bound by the Code - just like I was in 1977 when I took my oath; but it seems as though many other folks do not share that view. And unless someone holds them up to that standard, and shines the light of day on their dealings, we will never know the truth. The truth about much more than stocks or affairs or petty crimes. Here's hoping that ethics can rise again. LL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah Bob #35998 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Ethics don't change. People do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackwater 53393 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 What U.B. said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Mark Flint #31954 LIFE Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 I started practicing in 1992. I still believe my word is my bond and I don't accept that even a white lie is acceptable in any proceeding. I see the people that think otherwise and they are just as often the blue bloods, the privileged and the old established firms as they are the newcomers. Ethics may not change, but values certainly do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackwater 53393 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 THERE YA' GO!! Once again J. Mark has the words in the right order!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boon Doggle Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 · Hidden by Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217, July 10, 2015 - politics Hidden by Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217, July 10, 2015 - politics Y'all are missing the point. Laws, ethics, and morals do NOT apply to Liberals. Especially if their running for President. Link to comment
Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 Posted July 9, 2015 Author Share Posted July 9, 2015 If it wasn't obvious at the outset, I structured the original post as carefully as possible to avoid any direct political comment. I was even tempted for "balance" to refer to a certain set of folks who raised their hands in front of a Congressional Committee in the '70's and told so many different versions of an office building break-in that it became impossible to distinguish truth from fiction. But my goal here is not to draw political lines in the sand. You could substitute D for R at any point in the post; the point is not political alignment, but rather the flagrant disregard that certain elected officials have for their oaths as attorneys, as elected representatives, and as people supposedly qualified to be considered for higher office. If you or I tried such shenanigans, we would be disbarred and in the clink before you could spit. LL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duffield, SASS #23454 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 In Gilbert and Sullivan's play Trial by Jury one of the patter songs definitely implies that there were some unethical barristers practicing in England at the time. Sez I to myself sez I! I have yet to encounter an attorney who will shade the truth, but I have been amazed at some of the people who would purger themselves. Duffield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calamity Kris Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 I have some serious worries about where the values and moral compass of today's society are concerned. Honesty, integrity and morality seem to be taking a back seat to wants and fame. Really sad. Thank you LL, JMark and all the pards here who believe the honorable and honest thing will always be the "right thing to do". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 If it wasn't obvious at the outset, I structured the original post as carefully as possible to avoid any direct political comment. I was even tempted for "balance" to refer to a certain set of folks who raised their hands in front of a Congressional Committee in the '70's and told so many different versions of an office building break-in that it became impossible to distinguish truth from fiction. But my goal here is not to draw political lines in the sand. You could substitute D for R at any point in the post; the point is not political alignment, but rather the flagrant disregard that certain elected officials have for their oaths as attorneys, as elected representatives, and as people supposedly qualified to be considered for higher office. If you or I tried such shenanigans, we would be disbarred and in the clink before you could spit. LL Thank you for this post. I hope it will forestall further political comments. One has been axed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oklahomabound Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Loophole LaRue... I share your sentiment regarding the changing moral structure/fiber/ honesty/intergrity and such in our leaders and in our country in general... ...something about going to hell in a handbasket comes to mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 The political point was rather obvious.... I was admitted to the Bar in 1973. The civility climate in some quarters of the profession isn't what it once was, but by and large the ethics are intact, in my experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. R. Hugh Kidnme Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Power corrupts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Dan Troop 70448 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 In todays world, its hard with changes, and a PC world to suddenly find something no longer acceptable, many times overnight changes. MT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.