Why are there even ethical boards for licensed practice of law, when most admitted are robustly unethical ?

Question

Ethics is a very large topic, but distorting truths on a daily basis, accepting large sums of money for not doing to much, omitting evidence to win your point of view are all a huge compromise in ethics? The reason why there is so much of this, I think is because this behavior is inherently part of the profession, just as much as science is the pursuit of truth ? Even those on the boards protect this behavior and do nothing to protect its victims, in fact this behavior is as routine even at the top levels. It is not just a profession, it is a slipery and lucrative slope to moral death and lack of conscience, or caring. Often the poor, the honest, have different treasures ,, the gold is not money, not wordly.... it is truth and caring.

Definitions of ethics on the Web:: "motivation based on ideas of right and wrong / the philosophical study of moral values and rules Ethics is a general term for what is often described as the "science (study) of morality". In philosophy, ethical behavior is that which is "good" or "right."

Ezine Articles.com
Exerpt "Not All Lawyers are Total Crooks"
By Lance Winslow

"Recently at a coffee shop I has a talk with a lawyer and we got to talking about how lawyers are all crooks. He claimed he was not a crook although he was a lawyer and further mentioned that he did not like all the crooks who were in law or practicing law either".

As a matter-of-fact he said many of the government lawyers are the biggest crooks. And in his law firm he said that he thought only about half of them were dishonest. In other words they cheated on their billing, misrepresented the truth and things like this. I asked them if he ever cheated on his billing."

Not all, but there is a noted trend with this profession.

http://www.perkel.com/pbl/
Source: Mark Perkel “It wasn't until I became involved in the courts myself that I realized how bad the judicial system in America really is. I had heard stories of injustice that were hard to believe. I assumed that I wasn't hearing the whole story and it can't really be that bad. I thought that there are a few isolated incidences where injustice might occur, thinking that no one is perfect. One naturally doesn't want to believe that the justices system is corrupt enough that is should be classified as a criminal organization. One almost has to believe that this is America after all and surely "they" would never let this happen. Boy was I shocked to realize that my worst fears were true.”

Source: http://ebionite.com/hempstead.htm
“While most people are familiar with the recent Martha Stewart trial where the government basically prosecuted her for lying -- lying, so as not to incriminate herself in an insider trading deal -- what most people fail to realize is that lying and corruption in our judiciary is so endemic, that it is routine. Unlike Martha Stewart, lying and deception is so rampant in our system of courts, that sworn court officers who have taken an oath not to lie, routinely lie without any fear of prosecution, because everyone in the judiciary feels they have a license to lie and deceive the public.”

Exactly my sentiments - No doubt some lawyers are good, and every profession could say it for the greater good of society, it is all to easy to ignore the obvious which rings true.

My Definition of ethics

Truth is the most fundamental underlying factor to ethics, of which if devoid there is none.

1. Use your power of observations to tell the truth. Tell the truth - Do not lie, present the truth and only the truth and that truth based on clear precise and unaltered presentation of the facts. Not altered, no 50% your 50% of the truth, and know the law or do not practice.

2. Do not twist a story giving only 50% of evidence to support your lie, that you know not to be true for your own gain. Be willing to tell the truth, even if it means adverse consequence. Work as hard as you can, put 110% effort into your tasks. Do not exploit , do not bear false witness against your neighbor, do not persecute the innocent and justify the wicked, do not cheat on your spouse, do not exploit those who are needy, do not covet your neighbors goods. Do not charge 200 an hour/ to a person who is average working class, with half assed efforts

do not focus more on the monetary gain than the service and the quality of service you provide.

4. ARE there really two sides of the story? Or a truth and absolute, and the other a deluded deception. Is the world flat or round? An ethical board may know the world is round, but say it is flat and to prove it- omit any evidence to the contrary, showing demonstration of a horizontal object along a horizontal axis as proof. Failure to include evidence you know will collapse your case - is the basic flaw in integrity and ethics. Do it for pride, money or other reasons, and good for you, for your fleeting gain.

3. As far as the ethical boards, so you take care to protect yourself about small things like “advertising”, big deal…but what about the big issues – deception that undermines the facts presented even by the ethical boards who omit facts and evidence. And failure to do anything about the large number of those who lie, exploit consumers, defraud people - give me a break.

Shelby writes " What is your definition of ethics though? I understand sometimes distorting truths may seem unethical, but if it is just different charaterization of facts, that's what lawyers do. MY POINT EXACTLY!!!!!!! Distorting Facts does seem unethical it is LYING.

Turning a truth into a lie, and lie into truth using manipulative deceptive slight alterations of the events. I have seen enough of this and the power of deceptive persuation , enough for one lifetime.

Answer 1

What is your definition of ethics though?
I understand sometimes distorting truths may seem unethical, but if it is just different charaterization of facts, that's what lawyers do. Same facts but different characterization or different way of describing, that I don't think it's unethical. For example, if I stand in front of a person impeding that person's forward progress, one attorney can say, "I am blocking that person," the other one may argue that I was just "coincidentally there" in front of that person.
Accepting large sums of money for not doing too much - what does that "not doing too much" mean? Sometimes one sentence or one critical strategical suggestion means a lot to the case or a negotiation. I have heard some firms charge too much, but I really can't give a blank statement about that act is or may be unethical.
Omitting evidence to win - that may be more serious. However, sometimes withholding evidence may be necessary because of client-attorney privilege.
I understand where you are coming from. However, the lawyers I know are very ethical and I follow the ethical rules before the state bar and before the federal institutions very carefully. Sometimes even a wrong advertising can trigger a disciplinary action against us, so we do watch what we do.
Of course, there are unethical lawyers and even judges. But that goes the same with other professions.
The ethical boards are there to protect the public and to regular the lawyers. You can read more about it by search ABA's model rule for professional responsibilty.
The truth is that I definitely would argue not "most" admitted are robustly unethical. The only thing I can add is truth and caring are part of the profession; otherwise, we would not be here. We are here because we care for the society and the institution of justice (attorneys are also officers of the law and the courts). If we don't and the ethical board does not care, then we should not be here. We are not popular because we are seen as the devil's advocate. But when we win a case for the poor or the innocent, do people change minds about us? There are many good, ethical, trustworthy, law-abiding, caring and responsible attorneys who honestly believe in the profession and the profession in law is a noble profession. I sometimes spend my free time giving free legal advice and there are many attorneys are also doing many good things in the society for people who cannot afford a legal advice.

You pointed out that "MY POINT EXACTLY!!!!!!! Distorting Facts does seem unethical it is LYING."

Then, I think teachers, historians, writers, and even members of clergy or religious orders would be guilty of lying just because they characterize facts from their point of view!

But what is "fact"? Can you tell me what's "absolute" fact?

Fact: Earth used to be seen as flat and that was the truth; people used to treat that the earth was the center of the solar system until proven wrong). Were those people lying or distorting facts at that time? No, that's just the way they see things. That was the facts then. They did not have airplanes or ships that travel from continents to continents.

No, those are no longer facts. Were they wrong? Yes. Were they distorting facts? Maybe. Were they lying? I don't know.

Different characterization of facts is not necessarily distoring facts. You characterize things different due to various reasons, such as for persuation or just the way you feel or see the world. In fact, we do that all the time.

You can say what lawyers do is distorting facts, but I would say lawyers do what would best enhance their clients' chance at getting what they want within professional responsibility rules.

Answer 2

I don't think that this true at all. The law is a really expansive profession, and you are obviously only speaking about criminial and civil lawyers. None the less, there are plenty of lawyers who aren't corrupt in these fields. And it's not really fair to make a general blanketed statement that doesn't even address a particular case where these so called infringements took place. And anyways, i am so tired of people criticizing lawyers, they are just the messangers. They are not the plantiffs or the defendants. They represent unlikable people and cases! And as much as people want to spit on them , there are plenty of people that dedicate their lives to the betterment of society through the law.

Answer 3

Actually most are quite ethical individuals. You are confusing ethics with morals. I am NOT a classically "moral" person at all (nor do I want to be). I am however very ethical. I suggest you look up the definitions of ethics and morals. Ethics is merely one's obligation through duty and has nothing to do with what is "right" or what is "wrong". When you speak of "truth and caring" you are speaking purely of morals.

Answer 4

please ask a longer question. i stopped reading when you stated "accepting large sums of money for not doing much." that sounds like the typical american worker.