How should lawyers deal with disreputable instructions?
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has published another warning about solicitors becoming involved in dubious investment schemes, after recent cases led to the closure of seven firms and other regulatory action. This rightly highlights the welcome change of attitude we
solicitors have had to make.
It used to be that we represented the client's
interests without regard to any wider morality, so long as we were not
knowingly participating in criminal conduct or misleading the court. Now, we
are required to have broader ethical standards and to have a duty to the
public. I'm glad about that.
Lawyers are now expected to carry out some due diligence and assure themselves that their clients are behaving legally, rather than just accepting the assurances and half-truths clients my give them. The public may assume, rightly or wrongly, that because a solicitor is involved, the investment is legitimate or money is protected.
Professional ethics grew up in the admirable tradition that
solicitors represent their clients fearlessly and independently, and that
everyone is entitled to legal advice. Solicitors rightly represent people
accused of crimes or wrongdoing without allowing personal feelings to cloud
judgement, drawing the line at actual knowledge: if you don't know your client
is guilty, you can and should represent him in court. But in transactional
matters we need a more rigorous approach that avoids actually assisting in
schemes that are suspicious or disreputable. The fearless and independent
advice is then that the client should not do it.
