The Two Faces of Lawyers: Professional Ethics and Business Compliance With Regulation
Monash University - Faculty of Law
University of Miami - School of Law
Vibeke Lehmann Nielsen
University of Aarhus - Department of Political Science
November 23, 2007
Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, Vol. 22, 2009
University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2007-23
U of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 306
This article reports on the first major quantitative study of businesses that explores the use and influence of lawyers. Previous research has only surveyed or interviewed lawyers. Our findings are particularly robust in regards to lawyer behaviors because they do not derive from lawyer self-reports.
The professionalism thesis holds that what lawyers supply to clients is constrained by norms of professionalism, so that lawyers become compliance monitors. The devolution of professionalism thesis holds that what lawyers supply is constrained by client demand, so that lawyers enable client behaviors which are not oriented towards compliance.
We find that neither thesis applies to the market for corporate legal services. The devolution thesis fails to recognize that clients vary in their attitudes towards law and legal risk. As a result of client demand, a significant portion of what lawyers supply is service as compliance monitors. The professionalism thesis fails to recognize that norms of legal professionalism support lawyers' action as gamesters and adversarial advocates. As a result, even when clients demand lawyers who act as compliance monitors, lawyers supply services that incline clients to increasingly accept legal risk and adopt a gamester approach to law and regulation.
Our findings extend the market model by detailing mechanisms through which lawyers may influence compliance.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 48
Keywords: lawyers, corporate governance, regulatory compliance, professionalism
JEL Classification: J44, K20, K22, K32, L84, M14Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: December 6, 2007 ; Last revised: April 6, 2009
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.375 seconds