Bushwhacking the Ethical High Road: Conflict of Interest in the Practice of Law and Real Life
Identifieur interne : 005677 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 005676; suivant : 005678Bushwhacking the Ethical High Road: Conflict of Interest in the Practice of Law and Real Life
Auteurs : Susan P. ShapiroSource :
- Law & Social Inquiry [ 0897-6546 ] ; 2003-01.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Academe, Academic conflicts, Academic freedom, Academic institutions, Academic life, Academic research, Academic researchers, Academic world, Accountant, Accounting, Accounting firm, Accounting firms, Accounting profession, Accounting rules, Accounting scandals, Advance consent, Advance consents, Advance waivers, Adversarial, Adversary, Adverse interests, Adverse parties, Adverse party, Adverse position, Adversity, Advertiser, Advertising revenues, Advisory panel, Aicpa, American association, American institute, American journal, American lawyer, American newspapers, Andersen, Angeles times, Annual report, Annual survey, April, Arthur andersen, Artificial intelligence, Attorney registration, Audit, Audit clients, Audit firms, Audit services, Auditing, Auditor, Auditor independence, August, Beauty contests, Best interest, Best interests, Billing, Billing number, Biomedical, Biomedical research, Blumenthal, Board members, Board memberships, Board service, Book proposal, Book reviews, Boston globe, Bottom line, Bowie, Branch offices, Broker, Business committee, Business conflicts, Business considerations, Business interests, Business partners, Business side, California press, Capital markets, Capitation payments, Caplan, Chicago firms, Chicago lawyers, Chicago press, Chief accountant, Chinese wall, Chinese walls, Classic problem, Client, Client adversities, Client base, Client company, Client confidences, Client consent, Client interests, Client lists, Client loyalty, Client relations, Clinical investigators, Clinical research, Clinical trial, Clinical trials, Clout, Codefendant, Colleague, Collide, Columbia journalism review, Commercial interests, Community organizations, Compensation arrangements, Competitor, Confidential information, Confidentiality, Confidentiality rules, Conflict, Conflicts committee, Conflicts committees, Conflicts database, Conflicts rules, Conflicts screening, Conflicts waivers, Consulting business, Consulting fees, Consulting practices, Consulting services, Contingency fees, Control conflicts, Control group, Coparties, Corporate clients, Corporate executives, Corporate families, Court opinions, Credibility, Creditor, Cure conflicts, Current clients, Daily newspapers, Database, December, Deep pockets, Defense costs, Different kinds, Different ways, Disciplinary, Disciplinary commission, Disclosure, Disclosure approach, Disinterestedness, Disqualification, Disqualification motion, Disqualification rule, Diverse sources, Downstate, Dual relationships, Economics consulting group, Electronic databases, Engagement letters, England journal, Enron, Entire firm, Equity interest, Estate planning, Ethical issues, Ethical obligations, Ethical rules, Ethical screen, Ethical screens, Ethical walls, Ethics codes, Ethics rules, Exchange commission, Executive committee, Expert testimony, Expert witness, Expert witnesses, Expertise, Faculty appointments, Faculty members, False positives, Family counseling, Family member, Family members, Family system, Family therapy, February, Federal agencies, Federal government, Federal support, Fiduciary, Fiduciary duties, Fiduciary institutions, Fiduciary landscape, Fiduciary obligation, Fiduciary obligations, Fiduciary organizations, Fiduciary principle, Fiduciary relationships, Fiduciary role, Fiduciary services, Financial conflicts, Financial incentives, Financial institutions, Financial interest, Financial interests, Financial stake, Financial statements, Financial support, Financial ties, Firm, Firm attorney, Firm clients, Firm conflicts, Firm growth, Firm size, First amendment, First place, Former client, Former clients, Former firm, Fourth estate, Frankel, Free speech, Funding, Future business, Future conflicts, Future stream, Gatekeeper, Gatekeeping, General accounting office, Georgetown journal, Government agencies, Graduate student, Graduate students, Grant application, Gravitate, Great deal, Grob, Group members, Higher education, Host firm, Hourly billing, Human research protections, Human resources, Human services, Human subject protection, Human subjects, Huth, Illinois lawyers, Illinois rules, Illinois supreme court rules, Impersonal trust, Important clients, Incentive structures, Incompatible interests, Independent auditor, Index cards, Individual client, Individual lawyers, Individual therapy, Industry support, Inherent conflicts, Inquiry, Institutional conflicts, Institutional review boards, Insurance companies, Insurance company, Insurance coverage, Insurance defense, Insurer, Intellectual property, Interests collide, Investigator, Investor, Irbs, Issue conflicts, Ivory tower, Jaggar, January, Journalist, Journalistic, Judicial system, July, June, Kritzer, Large city, Large firms, Large numbers, Larger firms, Largest firms, Last decade, Lateral, Laterally, Lawsuit, Lawyer, Lawyer mobility, Legal action, Legal business, Legal counsel, Legal ethics, Legal fees, Legal practice, Legal practitioners, Legal profession, Legal representation, Legal rules, Legal services, Legal system, Legal talent, Legal work, Liability, Liability assurance society, Major advertisers, Malpractice, Malpractice claim, Malpractice insurance, Malpractice insurers, Many cases, Many firms, Many lawyers, Many others, Many respondents, Market control, Markie, Mass media, Mass torts, Matter forms, Media outlets, Median, Median size, Medical journals, Memoranda, Mobile lawyer, Mobile lawyers, Model rule, Model rules, More lawyers, Much time, Multidisciplinary, Multidisciplinary practice, Multidisciplinary practices, Multiple clients, Multiple hats, Multiple roles, National institutes, National news council, National science foundation, National survey, News coverage, News media, News organizations, News sources, News stories, Nonaudit, Nonaudit services, November, Objectivity, October, Ongoing, Ongoing case, Ongoing clients, Ongoing relationships, Opportunity costs, Other clients, Other companies, Other conflicts, Other developments, Other fiduciaries, Other firms, Other hand, Other institutions, Other lawyers, Other parties, Other professions, Other respondents, Other services, Other side, Other sources, Other states, Others note, Oversight, Ownership interest, Oxford university press, Paper records, Paralegal, Particular client, Peer review, Peer reviewers, Personal relationships, Pharmaceutical, Pharmaceutical companies, Pilot interviews, Piper, Placebo, Positional, Positional conflicts, Potential conflict, Potential conflicts, Powerful clients, Powerful incentive, Practice groups, Practice section, Practitioner, Private insurance companies, Private organizations, Private practice, Private practitioners, Private sector, Professional conduct, Professional ethics, Professional liability insurers, Professional responsibility, Professional responsibility committees, Prophylactic, Prophylactic device, Proprietary, Proprietary information, Prospective business, Prospective client, Prospective clients, Prospective engagement, Prospective matter, Prospective matters, Psychotherapist, Public accountant, Public accountants, Public colleges, Public companies, Public interest, Public officials, Public oversight board, Public trust, Random sample, Rare occasions, Recent years, Referral fees, Regulator, Regulatory, Regulatory attention, Regulatory process, Reputational, Research design, Research findings, Research hats, Research relationships, Research sponsors, Research subjects, Research universities, Researcher, Respondent, Restaurant reviewers, Reviewer, Risk aversion, Risky practices, Rodwin, Same time, Scenario, Scholarly literature, Schuster, Scientific research, Screening, Screening devices, Securities markets, Senior partners, Service firms, Several respondents, Shapiro, Shimm, Side effects, Significant conflicts, Significant role, Single lawyer, Small number, Small town, Small towns, Smaller firms, Smaller ones, Social change, Social control, Social inquiry, Social networks, Social organization, Social ties, Software, Spece, Specialized expertise, Sports teams, Spouse, States securities, Steady stream, Stock options, Substantial number, Synergy, Tangled loyalties, Tenured, Third parties, Third party, Tort, Treatment decisions, Triangular relationships, Twentieth century fund, Typhoid marys, University professors, University research, University technology managers, Waiver, Weimar republic, Welfel, York state, York times.
- Teeft :
- Academe, Academic conflicts, Academic freedom, Academic institutions, Academic life, Academic research, Academic researchers, Academic world, Accountant, Accounting, Accounting firm, Accounting firms, Accounting profession, Accounting rules, Accounting scandals, Advance consent, Advance consents, Advance waivers, Adversarial, Adversary, Adverse interests, Adverse parties, Adverse party, Adverse position, Adversity, Advertiser, Advertising revenues, Advisory panel, Aicpa, American association, American institute, American journal, American lawyer, American newspapers, Andersen, Angeles times, Annual report, Annual survey, April, Arthur andersen, Artificial intelligence, Attorney registration, Audit, Audit clients, Audit firms, Audit services, Auditing, Auditor, Auditor independence, August, Beauty contests, Best interest, Best interests, Billing, Billing number, Biomedical, Biomedical research, Blumenthal, Board members, Board memberships, Board service, Book proposal, Book reviews, Boston globe, Bottom line, Bowie, Branch offices, Broker, Business committee, Business conflicts, Business considerations, Business interests, Business partners, Business side, California press, Capital markets, Capitation payments, Caplan, Chicago firms, Chicago lawyers, Chicago press, Chief accountant, Chinese wall, Chinese walls, Classic problem, Client, Client adversities, Client base, Client company, Client confidences, Client consent, Client interests, Client lists, Client loyalty, Client relations, Clinical investigators, Clinical research, Clinical trial, Clinical trials, Clout, Codefendant, Colleague, Collide, Columbia journalism review, Commercial interests, Community organizations, Compensation arrangements, Competitor, Confidential information, Confidentiality, Confidentiality rules, Conflict, Conflicts committee, Conflicts committees, Conflicts database, Conflicts rules, Conflicts screening, Conflicts waivers, Consulting business, Consulting fees, Consulting practices, Consulting services, Contingency fees, Control conflicts, Control group, Coparties, Corporate clients, Corporate executives, Corporate families, Court opinions, Credibility, Creditor, Cure conflicts, Current clients, Daily newspapers, Database, December, Deep pockets, Defense costs, Different kinds, Different ways, Disciplinary, Disciplinary commission, Disclosure, Disclosure approach, Disinterestedness, Disqualification, Disqualification motion, Disqualification rule, Diverse sources, Downstate, Dual relationships, Economics consulting group, Electronic databases, Engagement letters, England journal, Enron, Entire firm, Equity interest, Estate planning, Ethical issues, Ethical obligations, Ethical rules, Ethical screen, Ethical screens, Ethical walls, Ethics codes, Ethics rules, Exchange commission, Executive committee, Expert testimony, Expert witness, Expert witnesses, Expertise, Faculty appointments, Faculty members, False positives, Family counseling, Family member, Family members, Family system, Family therapy, February, Federal agencies, Federal government, Federal support, Fiduciary, Fiduciary duties, Fiduciary institutions, Fiduciary landscape, Fiduciary obligation, Fiduciary obligations, Fiduciary organizations, Fiduciary principle, Fiduciary relationships, Fiduciary role, Fiduciary services, Financial conflicts, Financial incentives, Financial institutions, Financial interest, Financial interests, Financial stake, Financial statements, Financial support, Financial ties, Firm, Firm attorney, Firm clients, Firm conflicts, Firm growth, Firm size, First amendment, First place, Former client, Former clients, Former firm, Fourth estate, Frankel, Free speech, Funding, Future business, Future conflicts, Future stream, Gatekeeper, Gatekeeping, General accounting office, Georgetown journal, Government agencies, Graduate student, Graduate students, Grant application, Gravitate, Great deal, Grob, Group members, Higher education, Host firm, Hourly billing, Human research protections, Human resources, Human services, Human subject protection, Human subjects, Huth, Illinois lawyers, Illinois rules, Illinois supreme court rules, Impersonal trust, Important clients, Incentive structures, Incompatible interests, Independent auditor, Index cards, Individual client, Individual lawyers, Individual therapy, Industry support, Inherent conflicts, Inquiry, Institutional conflicts, Institutional review boards, Insurance companies, Insurance company, Insurance coverage, Insurance defense, Insurer, Intellectual property, Interests collide, Investigator, Investor, Irbs, Issue conflicts, Ivory tower, Jaggar, January, Journalist, Journalistic, Judicial system, July, June, Kritzer, Large city, Large firms, Large numbers, Larger firms, Largest firms, Last decade, Lateral, Laterally, Lawsuit, Lawyer, Lawyer mobility, Legal action, Legal business, Legal counsel, Legal ethics, Legal fees, Legal practice, Legal practitioners, Legal profession, Legal representation, Legal rules, Legal services, Legal system, Legal talent, Legal work, Liability, Liability assurance society, Major advertisers, Malpractice, Malpractice claim, Malpractice insurance, Malpractice insurers, Many cases, Many firms, Many lawyers, Many others, Many respondents, Market control, Markie, Mass media, Mass torts, Matter forms, Media outlets, Median, Median size, Medical journals, Memoranda, Mobile lawyer, Mobile lawyers, Model rule, Model rules, More lawyers, Much time, Multidisciplinary, Multidisciplinary practice, Multidisciplinary practices, Multiple clients, Multiple hats, Multiple roles, National institutes, National news council, National science foundation, National survey, News coverage, News media, News organizations, News sources, News stories, Nonaudit, Nonaudit services, November, Objectivity, October, Ongoing, Ongoing case, Ongoing clients, Ongoing relationships, Opportunity costs, Other clients, Other companies, Other conflicts, Other developments, Other fiduciaries, Other firms, Other hand, Other institutions, Other lawyers, Other parties, Other professions, Other respondents, Other services, Other side, Other sources, Other states, Others note, Oversight, Ownership interest, Oxford university press, Paper records, Paralegal, Particular client, Peer review, Peer reviewers, Personal relationships, Pharmaceutical, Pharmaceutical companies, Pilot interviews, Piper, Placebo, Positional, Positional conflicts, Potential conflict, Potential conflicts, Powerful clients, Powerful incentive, Practice groups, Practice section, Practitioner, Private insurance companies, Private organizations, Private practice, Private practitioners, Private sector, Professional conduct, Professional ethics, Professional liability insurers, Professional responsibility, Professional responsibility committees, Prophylactic, Prophylactic device, Proprietary, Proprietary information, Prospective business, Prospective client, Prospective clients, Prospective engagement, Prospective matter, Prospective matters, Psychotherapist, Public accountant, Public accountants, Public colleges, Public companies, Public interest, Public officials, Public oversight board, Public trust, Random sample, Rare occasions, Recent years, Referral fees, Regulator, Regulatory, Regulatory attention, Regulatory process, Reputational, Research design, Research findings, Research hats, Research relationships, Research sponsors, Research subjects, Research universities, Researcher, Respondent, Restaurant reviewers, Reviewer, Risk aversion, Risky practices, Rodwin, Same time, Scenario, Scholarly literature, Schuster, Scientific research, Screening, Screening devices, Securities markets, Senior partners, Service firms, Several respondents, Shapiro, Shimm, Side effects, Significant conflicts, Significant role, Single lawyer, Small number, Small town, Small towns, Smaller firms, Smaller ones, Social change, Social control, Social inquiry, Social networks, Social organization, Social ties, Software, Spece, Specialized expertise, Sports teams, Spouse, States securities, Steady stream, Stock options, Substantial number, Synergy, Tangled loyalties, Tenured, Third parties, Third party, Tort, Treatment decisions, Triangular relationships, Twentieth century fund, Typhoid marys, University professors, University research, University technology managers, Waiver, Weimar republic, Welfel, York state, York times.
Abstract
A long‐standing scholarly tradition regards professions, in general, and ethics rules, in particular, as “projects” of market control. It is no surprise, critics charge, that in the latest assault on the monopoly of the American legal profession–waged by multidisciplinary professional service firms–lawyers are hiding behind their ethics rules to protect their turf. In this article, I report on an extensive empirical study of conflict of interest in private legal practice and look comparatively at other fiduciaries, among them, accountants, psychotherapists, physicians, journalists, and academics. I investigate the role of ethics rules that seek to insure fiduciary loyalty in structuring the delivery of services. How does social and institutional change, roiling the fiduciary world, threaten disinterestedness and loyalty and how, if at all, do fiduciaries respond? How is the regulation of conflict of interest accomplished? Where are the conflicts rules most likely to be honored or ignored? What incentive structures encourage compliance? What are the costs and unexpected consequences of compliance? What is foregone? And is it all worth it? In what might come as a surprise to many, I find that the legal profession takes conflict of interest more seriously than many of the rest of us. As the title implies, legal practitioners largely travel alone, bushwhacking through the underbrush snarling the ethical high road. As critical scholarship predicted, lawyers do enjoy a monopoly at the end of the road. But this monopoly is achieved, not by restraint of trade or some other artifice or stratagem of market control, but by lack of competition. It seems that no one else is trudging alongside the lawyers. Lawyers are not necessarily more ethical than the others; they just behave more ethically–at least with respect to conflict of interest. The question is why. And what difference does it make?
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2003.tb00993.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:ADFC0509F72E9078E37412669E6D11A92FCC8973Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Bushwhacking the Ethical High Road: Conflict of Interest in the Practice of Law and Real Life</title><author><name sortKey="Shapiro, Susan P" sort="Shapiro, Susan P" uniqKey="Shapiro S" first="Susan P." last="Shapiro">Susan P. Shapiro</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Senior research fellow, American Bar Foundation, Chicago. This research was supported by the American Bar Foundation and National Science Foundation grant SES‐9223615. Special thanks to Benjamin Casper, LKesha Threats, Bryant Garth, Mary Rose, Carole Silver, Ann Southworth, Jack Heinz, M. Peter Moser, and to the lawyers who generously shared their time and experience with thoughtful reflection, colorful detail, and unusual candor. Some material presented in this article is drawn from my book Tangled Loyalties: Conflict of Interest in Legal Practice, published by the University of Michigan Press (Shapiro 2002).</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:ADFC0509F72E9078E37412669E6D11A92FCC8973</idno><date when="2003" year="2003">2003</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1747-4469.2003.tb00993.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/ADFC0509F72E9078E37412669E6D11A92FCC8973/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">005677</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">005677</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Bushwhacking the Ethical High Road: Conflict of Interest in the Practice of Law and Real Life</title><author><name sortKey="Shapiro, Susan P" sort="Shapiro, Susan P" uniqKey="Shapiro S" first="Susan P." last="Shapiro">Susan P. Shapiro</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Senior research fellow, American Bar Foundation, Chicago. This research was supported by the American Bar Foundation and National Science Foundation grant SES‐9223615. Special thanks to Benjamin Casper, LKesha Threats, Bryant Garth, Mary Rose, Carole Silver, Ann Southworth, Jack Heinz, M. Peter Moser, and to the lawyers who generously shared their time and experience with thoughtful reflection, colorful detail, and unusual candor. Some material presented in this article is drawn from my book Tangled Loyalties: Conflict of Interest in Legal Practice, published by the University of Michigan Press (Shapiro 2002).</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Law & Social Inquiry</title><title level="j" type="alt">LAW SOCIAL INQUIRY</title><idno type="ISSN">0897-6546</idno><idno type="eISSN">1747-4469</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">28</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="87">87</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="268">268</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">182</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2003-01">2003-01</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0897-6546</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0897-6546</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Academe</term><term>Academic conflicts</term><term>Academic freedom</term><term>Academic institutions</term><term>Academic life</term><term>Academic research</term><term>Academic researchers</term><term>Academic world</term><term>Accountant</term><term>Accounting</term><term>Accounting firm</term><term>Accounting firms</term><term>Accounting profession</term><term>Accounting rules</term><term>Accounting scandals</term><term>Advance consent</term><term>Advance consents</term><term>Advance waivers</term><term>Adversarial</term><term>Adversary</term><term>Adverse interests</term><term>Adverse parties</term><term>Adverse party</term><term>Adverse position</term><term>Adversity</term><term>Advertiser</term><term>Advertising revenues</term><term>Advisory panel</term><term>Aicpa</term><term>American association</term><term>American institute</term><term>American journal</term><term>American lawyer</term><term>American newspapers</term><term>Andersen</term><term>Angeles times</term><term>Annual report</term><term>Annual survey</term><term>April</term><term>Arthur andersen</term><term>Artificial intelligence</term><term>Attorney registration</term><term>Audit</term><term>Audit clients</term><term>Audit firms</term><term>Audit services</term><term>Auditing</term><term>Auditor</term><term>Auditor independence</term><term>August</term><term>Beauty contests</term><term>Best interest</term><term>Best interests</term><term>Billing</term><term>Billing number</term><term>Biomedical</term><term>Biomedical research</term><term>Blumenthal</term><term>Board members</term><term>Board memberships</term><term>Board service</term><term>Book proposal</term><term>Book reviews</term><term>Boston globe</term><term>Bottom line</term><term>Bowie</term><term>Branch offices</term><term>Broker</term><term>Business committee</term><term>Business conflicts</term><term>Business considerations</term><term>Business interests</term><term>Business partners</term><term>Business side</term><term>California press</term><term>Capital markets</term><term>Capitation payments</term><term>Caplan</term><term>Chicago firms</term><term>Chicago lawyers</term><term>Chicago press</term><term>Chief accountant</term><term>Chinese wall</term><term>Chinese walls</term><term>Classic problem</term><term>Client</term><term>Client adversities</term><term>Client base</term><term>Client company</term><term>Client confidences</term><term>Client consent</term><term>Client interests</term><term>Client lists</term><term>Client loyalty</term><term>Client relations</term><term>Clinical investigators</term><term>Clinical research</term><term>Clinical trial</term><term>Clinical trials</term><term>Clout</term><term>Codefendant</term><term>Colleague</term><term>Collide</term><term>Columbia journalism review</term><term>Commercial interests</term><term>Community organizations</term><term>Compensation arrangements</term><term>Competitor</term><term>Confidential information</term><term>Confidentiality</term><term>Confidentiality rules</term><term>Conflict</term><term>Conflicts committee</term><term>Conflicts committees</term><term>Conflicts database</term><term>Conflicts rules</term><term>Conflicts screening</term><term>Conflicts waivers</term><term>Consulting business</term><term>Consulting fees</term><term>Consulting practices</term><term>Consulting services</term><term>Contingency fees</term><term>Control conflicts</term><term>Control group</term><term>Coparties</term><term>Corporate clients</term><term>Corporate executives</term><term>Corporate families</term><term>Court opinions</term><term>Credibility</term><term>Creditor</term><term>Cure conflicts</term><term>Current clients</term><term>Daily newspapers</term><term>Database</term><term>December</term><term>Deep pockets</term><term>Defense costs</term><term>Different kinds</term><term>Different ways</term><term>Disciplinary</term><term>Disciplinary commission</term><term>Disclosure</term><term>Disclosure approach</term><term>Disinterestedness</term><term>Disqualification</term><term>Disqualification motion</term><term>Disqualification rule</term><term>Diverse sources</term><term>Downstate</term><term>Dual relationships</term><term>Economics consulting group</term><term>Electronic databases</term><term>Engagement letters</term><term>England journal</term><term>Enron</term><term>Entire firm</term><term>Equity interest</term><term>Estate planning</term><term>Ethical issues</term><term>Ethical obligations</term><term>Ethical rules</term><term>Ethical screen</term><term>Ethical screens</term><term>Ethical walls</term><term>Ethics codes</term><term>Ethics rules</term><term>Exchange commission</term><term>Executive committee</term><term>Expert testimony</term><term>Expert witness</term><term>Expert witnesses</term><term>Expertise</term><term>Faculty appointments</term><term>Faculty members</term><term>False positives</term><term>Family counseling</term><term>Family member</term><term>Family members</term><term>Family system</term><term>Family therapy</term><term>February</term><term>Federal agencies</term><term>Federal government</term><term>Federal support</term><term>Fiduciary</term><term>Fiduciary duties</term><term>Fiduciary institutions</term><term>Fiduciary landscape</term><term>Fiduciary obligation</term><term>Fiduciary obligations</term><term>Fiduciary organizations</term><term>Fiduciary principle</term><term>Fiduciary relationships</term><term>Fiduciary role</term><term>Fiduciary services</term><term>Financial conflicts</term><term>Financial incentives</term><term>Financial institutions</term><term>Financial interest</term><term>Financial interests</term><term>Financial stake</term><term>Financial statements</term><term>Financial support</term><term>Financial ties</term><term>Firm</term><term>Firm attorney</term><term>Firm clients</term><term>Firm conflicts</term><term>Firm growth</term><term>Firm size</term><term>First amendment</term><term>First place</term><term>Former client</term><term>Former clients</term><term>Former firm</term><term>Fourth estate</term><term>Frankel</term><term>Free speech</term><term>Funding</term><term>Future business</term><term>Future conflicts</term><term>Future stream</term><term>Gatekeeper</term><term>Gatekeeping</term><term>General accounting office</term><term>Georgetown journal</term><term>Government agencies</term><term>Graduate student</term><term>Graduate students</term><term>Grant application</term><term>Gravitate</term><term>Great deal</term><term>Grob</term><term>Group members</term><term>Higher education</term><term>Host firm</term><term>Hourly billing</term><term>Human research protections</term><term>Human resources</term><term>Human services</term><term>Human subject protection</term><term>Human subjects</term><term>Huth</term><term>Illinois lawyers</term><term>Illinois rules</term><term>Illinois supreme court rules</term><term>Impersonal trust</term><term>Important clients</term><term>Incentive structures</term><term>Incompatible interests</term><term>Independent auditor</term><term>Index cards</term><term>Individual client</term><term>Individual lawyers</term><term>Individual therapy</term><term>Industry support</term><term>Inherent conflicts</term><term>Inquiry</term><term>Institutional conflicts</term><term>Institutional review boards</term><term>Insurance companies</term><term>Insurance company</term><term>Insurance coverage</term><term>Insurance defense</term><term>Insurer</term><term>Intellectual property</term><term>Interests collide</term><term>Investigator</term><term>Investor</term><term>Irbs</term><term>Issue conflicts</term><term>Ivory tower</term><term>Jaggar</term><term>January</term><term>Journalist</term><term>Journalistic</term><term>Judicial system</term><term>July</term><term>June</term><term>Kritzer</term><term>Large city</term><term>Large firms</term><term>Large numbers</term><term>Larger firms</term><term>Largest firms</term><term>Last decade</term><term>Lateral</term><term>Laterally</term><term>Lawsuit</term><term>Lawyer</term><term>Lawyer mobility</term><term>Legal action</term><term>Legal business</term><term>Legal counsel</term><term>Legal ethics</term><term>Legal fees</term><term>Legal practice</term><term>Legal practitioners</term><term>Legal profession</term><term>Legal representation</term><term>Legal rules</term><term>Legal services</term><term>Legal system</term><term>Legal talent</term><term>Legal work</term><term>Liability</term><term>Liability assurance society</term><term>Major advertisers</term><term>Malpractice</term><term>Malpractice claim</term><term>Malpractice insurance</term><term>Malpractice insurers</term><term>Many cases</term><term>Many firms</term><term>Many lawyers</term><term>Many others</term><term>Many respondents</term><term>Market control</term><term>Markie</term><term>Mass media</term><term>Mass torts</term><term>Matter forms</term><term>Media outlets</term><term>Median</term><term>Median size</term><term>Medical journals</term><term>Memoranda</term><term>Mobile lawyer</term><term>Mobile lawyers</term><term>Model rule</term><term>Model rules</term><term>More lawyers</term><term>Much time</term><term>Multidisciplinary</term><term>Multidisciplinary practice</term><term>Multidisciplinary practices</term><term>Multiple clients</term><term>Multiple hats</term><term>Multiple roles</term><term>National institutes</term><term>National news council</term><term>National science foundation</term><term>National survey</term><term>News coverage</term><term>News media</term><term>News organizations</term><term>News sources</term><term>News stories</term><term>Nonaudit</term><term>Nonaudit services</term><term>November</term><term>Objectivity</term><term>October</term><term>Ongoing</term><term>Ongoing case</term><term>Ongoing clients</term><term>Ongoing relationships</term><term>Opportunity costs</term><term>Other clients</term><term>Other companies</term><term>Other conflicts</term><term>Other developments</term><term>Other fiduciaries</term><term>Other firms</term><term>Other hand</term><term>Other institutions</term><term>Other lawyers</term><term>Other parties</term><term>Other professions</term><term>Other respondents</term><term>Other services</term><term>Other side</term><term>Other sources</term><term>Other states</term><term>Others note</term><term>Oversight</term><term>Ownership interest</term><term>Oxford university press</term><term>Paper records</term><term>Paralegal</term><term>Particular client</term><term>Peer review</term><term>Peer reviewers</term><term>Personal relationships</term><term>Pharmaceutical</term><term>Pharmaceutical companies</term><term>Pilot interviews</term><term>Piper</term><term>Placebo</term><term>Positional</term><term>Positional conflicts</term><term>Potential conflict</term><term>Potential conflicts</term><term>Powerful clients</term><term>Powerful incentive</term><term>Practice groups</term><term>Practice section</term><term>Practitioner</term><term>Private insurance companies</term><term>Private organizations</term><term>Private practice</term><term>Private practitioners</term><term>Private sector</term><term>Professional conduct</term><term>Professional ethics</term><term>Professional liability insurers</term><term>Professional responsibility</term><term>Professional responsibility committees</term><term>Prophylactic</term><term>Prophylactic device</term><term>Proprietary</term><term>Proprietary information</term><term>Prospective business</term><term>Prospective client</term><term>Prospective clients</term><term>Prospective engagement</term><term>Prospective matter</term><term>Prospective matters</term><term>Psychotherapist</term><term>Public accountant</term><term>Public accountants</term><term>Public colleges</term><term>Public companies</term><term>Public interest</term><term>Public officials</term><term>Public oversight board</term><term>Public trust</term><term>Random sample</term><term>Rare occasions</term><term>Recent years</term><term>Referral fees</term><term>Regulator</term><term>Regulatory</term><term>Regulatory attention</term><term>Regulatory process</term><term>Reputational</term><term>Research design</term><term>Research findings</term><term>Research hats</term><term>Research relationships</term><term>Research sponsors</term><term>Research subjects</term><term>Research universities</term><term>Researcher</term><term>Respondent</term><term>Restaurant reviewers</term><term>Reviewer</term><term>Risk aversion</term><term>Risky practices</term><term>Rodwin</term><term>Same time</term><term>Scenario</term><term>Scholarly literature</term><term>Schuster</term><term>Scientific research</term><term>Screening</term><term>Screening devices</term><term>Securities markets</term><term>Senior partners</term><term>Service firms</term><term>Several respondents</term><term>Shapiro</term><term>Shimm</term><term>Side effects</term><term>Significant conflicts</term><term>Significant role</term><term>Single lawyer</term><term>Small number</term><term>Small town</term><term>Small towns</term><term>Smaller firms</term><term>Smaller ones</term><term>Social change</term><term>Social control</term><term>Social inquiry</term><term>Social networks</term><term>Social organization</term><term>Social ties</term><term>Software</term><term>Spece</term><term>Specialized expertise</term><term>Sports teams</term><term>Spouse</term><term>States securities</term><term>Steady stream</term><term>Stock options</term><term>Substantial number</term><term>Synergy</term><term>Tangled loyalties</term><term>Tenured</term><term>Third parties</term><term>Third party</term><term>Tort</term><term>Treatment decisions</term><term>Triangular relationships</term><term>Twentieth century fund</term><term>Typhoid marys</term><term>University professors</term><term>University research</term><term>University technology managers</term><term>Waiver</term><term>Weimar republic</term><term>Welfel</term><term>York state</term><term>York times</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Academe</term><term>Academic conflicts</term><term>Academic freedom</term><term>Academic institutions</term><term>Academic life</term><term>Academic research</term><term>Academic researchers</term><term>Academic world</term><term>Accountant</term><term>Accounting</term><term>Accounting firm</term><term>Accounting firms</term><term>Accounting profession</term><term>Accounting rules</term><term>Accounting scandals</term><term>Advance consent</term><term>Advance consents</term><term>Advance waivers</term><term>Adversarial</term><term>Adversary</term><term>Adverse interests</term><term>Adverse parties</term><term>Adverse party</term><term>Adverse position</term><term>Adversity</term><term>Advertiser</term><term>Advertising revenues</term><term>Advisory panel</term><term>Aicpa</term><term>American association</term><term>American institute</term><term>American journal</term><term>American lawyer</term><term>American newspapers</term><term>Andersen</term><term>Angeles times</term><term>Annual report</term><term>Annual survey</term><term>April</term><term>Arthur andersen</term><term>Artificial intelligence</term><term>Attorney registration</term><term>Audit</term><term>Audit clients</term><term>Audit firms</term><term>Audit services</term><term>Auditing</term><term>Auditor</term><term>Auditor independence</term><term>August</term><term>Beauty contests</term><term>Best interest</term><term>Best interests</term><term>Billing</term><term>Billing number</term><term>Biomedical</term><term>Biomedical research</term><term>Blumenthal</term><term>Board members</term><term>Board memberships</term><term>Board service</term><term>Book proposal</term><term>Book reviews</term><term>Boston globe</term><term>Bottom line</term><term>Bowie</term><term>Branch offices</term><term>Broker</term><term>Business committee</term><term>Business conflicts</term><term>Business considerations</term><term>Business interests</term><term>Business partners</term><term>Business side</term><term>California press</term><term>Capital markets</term><term>Capitation payments</term><term>Caplan</term><term>Chicago firms</term><term>Chicago lawyers</term><term>Chicago press</term><term>Chief accountant</term><term>Chinese wall</term><term>Chinese walls</term><term>Classic problem</term><term>Client</term><term>Client adversities</term><term>Client base</term><term>Client company</term><term>Client confidences</term><term>Client consent</term><term>Client interests</term><term>Client lists</term><term>Client loyalty</term><term>Client relations</term><term>Clinical investigators</term><term>Clinical research</term><term>Clinical trial</term><term>Clinical trials</term><term>Clout</term><term>Codefendant</term><term>Colleague</term><term>Collide</term><term>Columbia journalism review</term><term>Commercial interests</term><term>Community organizations</term><term>Compensation arrangements</term><term>Competitor</term><term>Confidential information</term><term>Confidentiality</term><term>Confidentiality rules</term><term>Conflict</term><term>Conflicts committee</term><term>Conflicts committees</term><term>Conflicts database</term><term>Conflicts rules</term><term>Conflicts screening</term><term>Conflicts waivers</term><term>Consulting business</term><term>Consulting fees</term><term>Consulting practices</term><term>Consulting services</term><term>Contingency fees</term><term>Control conflicts</term><term>Control group</term><term>Coparties</term><term>Corporate clients</term><term>Corporate executives</term><term>Corporate families</term><term>Court opinions</term><term>Credibility</term><term>Creditor</term><term>Cure conflicts</term><term>Current clients</term><term>Daily newspapers</term><term>Database</term><term>December</term><term>Deep pockets</term><term>Defense costs</term><term>Different kinds</term><term>Different ways</term><term>Disciplinary</term><term>Disciplinary commission</term><term>Disclosure</term><term>Disclosure approach</term><term>Disinterestedness</term><term>Disqualification</term><term>Disqualification motion</term><term>Disqualification rule</term><term>Diverse sources</term><term>Downstate</term><term>Dual relationships</term><term>Economics consulting group</term><term>Electronic databases</term><term>Engagement letters</term><term>England journal</term><term>Enron</term><term>Entire firm</term><term>Equity interest</term><term>Estate planning</term><term>Ethical issues</term><term>Ethical obligations</term><term>Ethical rules</term><term>Ethical screen</term><term>Ethical screens</term><term>Ethical walls</term><term>Ethics codes</term><term>Ethics rules</term><term>Exchange commission</term><term>Executive committee</term><term>Expert testimony</term><term>Expert witness</term><term>Expert witnesses</term><term>Expertise</term><term>Faculty appointments</term><term>Faculty members</term><term>False positives</term><term>Family counseling</term><term>Family member</term><term>Family members</term><term>Family system</term><term>Family therapy</term><term>February</term><term>Federal agencies</term><term>Federal government</term><term>Federal support</term><term>Fiduciary</term><term>Fiduciary duties</term><term>Fiduciary institutions</term><term>Fiduciary landscape</term><term>Fiduciary obligation</term><term>Fiduciary obligations</term><term>Fiduciary organizations</term><term>Fiduciary principle</term><term>Fiduciary relationships</term><term>Fiduciary role</term><term>Fiduciary services</term><term>Financial conflicts</term><term>Financial incentives</term><term>Financial institutions</term><term>Financial interest</term><term>Financial interests</term><term>Financial stake</term><term>Financial statements</term><term>Financial support</term><term>Financial ties</term><term>Firm</term><term>Firm attorney</term><term>Firm clients</term><term>Firm conflicts</term><term>Firm growth</term><term>Firm size</term><term>First amendment</term><term>First place</term><term>Former client</term><term>Former clients</term><term>Former firm</term><term>Fourth estate</term><term>Frankel</term><term>Free speech</term><term>Funding</term><term>Future business</term><term>Future conflicts</term><term>Future stream</term><term>Gatekeeper</term><term>Gatekeeping</term><term>General accounting office</term><term>Georgetown journal</term><term>Government agencies</term><term>Graduate student</term><term>Graduate students</term><term>Grant application</term><term>Gravitate</term><term>Great deal</term><term>Grob</term><term>Group members</term><term>Higher education</term><term>Host firm</term><term>Hourly billing</term><term>Human research protections</term><term>Human resources</term><term>Human services</term><term>Human subject protection</term><term>Human subjects</term><term>Huth</term><term>Illinois lawyers</term><term>Illinois rules</term><term>Illinois supreme court rules</term><term>Impersonal trust</term><term>Important clients</term><term>Incentive structures</term><term>Incompatible interests</term><term>Independent auditor</term><term>Index cards</term><term>Individual client</term><term>Individual lawyers</term><term>Individual therapy</term><term>Industry support</term><term>Inherent conflicts</term><term>Inquiry</term><term>Institutional conflicts</term><term>Institutional review boards</term><term>Insurance companies</term><term>Insurance company</term><term>Insurance coverage</term><term>Insurance defense</term><term>Insurer</term><term>Intellectual property</term><term>Interests collide</term><term>Investigator</term><term>Investor</term><term>Irbs</term><term>Issue conflicts</term><term>Ivory tower</term><term>Jaggar</term><term>January</term><term>Journalist</term><term>Journalistic</term><term>Judicial system</term><term>July</term><term>June</term><term>Kritzer</term><term>Large city</term><term>Large firms</term><term>Large numbers</term><term>Larger firms</term><term>Largest firms</term><term>Last decade</term><term>Lateral</term><term>Laterally</term><term>Lawsuit</term><term>Lawyer</term><term>Lawyer mobility</term><term>Legal action</term><term>Legal business</term><term>Legal counsel</term><term>Legal ethics</term><term>Legal fees</term><term>Legal practice</term><term>Legal practitioners</term><term>Legal profession</term><term>Legal representation</term><term>Legal rules</term><term>Legal services</term><term>Legal system</term><term>Legal talent</term><term>Legal work</term><term>Liability</term><term>Liability assurance society</term><term>Major advertisers</term><term>Malpractice</term><term>Malpractice claim</term><term>Malpractice insurance</term><term>Malpractice insurers</term><term>Many cases</term><term>Many firms</term><term>Many lawyers</term><term>Many others</term><term>Many respondents</term><term>Market control</term><term>Markie</term><term>Mass media</term><term>Mass torts</term><term>Matter forms</term><term>Media outlets</term><term>Median</term><term>Median size</term><term>Medical journals</term><term>Memoranda</term><term>Mobile lawyer</term><term>Mobile lawyers</term><term>Model rule</term><term>Model rules</term><term>More lawyers</term><term>Much time</term><term>Multidisciplinary</term><term>Multidisciplinary practice</term><term>Multidisciplinary practices</term><term>Multiple clients</term><term>Multiple hats</term><term>Multiple roles</term><term>National institutes</term><term>National news council</term><term>National science foundation</term><term>National survey</term><term>News coverage</term><term>News media</term><term>News organizations</term><term>News sources</term><term>News stories</term><term>Nonaudit</term><term>Nonaudit services</term><term>November</term><term>Objectivity</term><term>October</term><term>Ongoing</term><term>Ongoing case</term><term>Ongoing clients</term><term>Ongoing relationships</term><term>Opportunity costs</term><term>Other clients</term><term>Other companies</term><term>Other conflicts</term><term>Other developments</term><term>Other fiduciaries</term><term>Other firms</term><term>Other hand</term><term>Other institutions</term><term>Other lawyers</term><term>Other parties</term><term>Other professions</term><term>Other respondents</term><term>Other services</term><term>Other side</term><term>Other sources</term><term>Other states</term><term>Others note</term><term>Oversight</term><term>Ownership interest</term><term>Oxford university press</term><term>Paper records</term><term>Paralegal</term><term>Particular client</term><term>Peer review</term><term>Peer reviewers</term><term>Personal relationships</term><term>Pharmaceutical</term><term>Pharmaceutical companies</term><term>Pilot interviews</term><term>Piper</term><term>Placebo</term><term>Positional</term><term>Positional conflicts</term><term>Potential conflict</term><term>Potential conflicts</term><term>Powerful clients</term><term>Powerful incentive</term><term>Practice groups</term><term>Practice section</term><term>Practitioner</term><term>Private insurance companies</term><term>Private organizations</term><term>Private practice</term><term>Private practitioners</term><term>Private sector</term><term>Professional conduct</term><term>Professional ethics</term><term>Professional liability insurers</term><term>Professional responsibility</term><term>Professional responsibility committees</term><term>Prophylactic</term><term>Prophylactic device</term><term>Proprietary</term><term>Proprietary information</term><term>Prospective business</term><term>Prospective client</term><term>Prospective clients</term><term>Prospective engagement</term><term>Prospective matter</term><term>Prospective matters</term><term>Psychotherapist</term><term>Public accountant</term><term>Public accountants</term><term>Public colleges</term><term>Public companies</term><term>Public interest</term><term>Public officials</term><term>Public oversight board</term><term>Public trust</term><term>Random sample</term><term>Rare occasions</term><term>Recent years</term><term>Referral fees</term><term>Regulator</term><term>Regulatory</term><term>Regulatory attention</term><term>Regulatory process</term><term>Reputational</term><term>Research design</term><term>Research findings</term><term>Research hats</term><term>Research relationships</term><term>Research sponsors</term><term>Research subjects</term><term>Research universities</term><term>Researcher</term><term>Respondent</term><term>Restaurant reviewers</term><term>Reviewer</term><term>Risk aversion</term><term>Risky practices</term><term>Rodwin</term><term>Same time</term><term>Scenario</term><term>Scholarly literature</term><term>Schuster</term><term>Scientific research</term><term>Screening</term><term>Screening devices</term><term>Securities markets</term><term>Senior partners</term><term>Service firms</term><term>Several respondents</term><term>Shapiro</term><term>Shimm</term><term>Side effects</term><term>Significant conflicts</term><term>Significant role</term><term>Single lawyer</term><term>Small number</term><term>Small town</term><term>Small towns</term><term>Smaller firms</term><term>Smaller ones</term><term>Social change</term><term>Social control</term><term>Social inquiry</term><term>Social networks</term><term>Social organization</term><term>Social ties</term><term>Software</term><term>Spece</term><term>Specialized expertise</term><term>Sports teams</term><term>Spouse</term><term>States securities</term><term>Steady stream</term><term>Stock options</term><term>Substantial number</term><term>Synergy</term><term>Tangled loyalties</term><term>Tenured</term><term>Third parties</term><term>Third party</term><term>Tort</term><term>Treatment decisions</term><term>Triangular relationships</term><term>Twentieth century fund</term><term>Typhoid marys</term><term>University professors</term><term>University research</term><term>University technology managers</term><term>Waiver</term><term>Weimar republic</term><term>Welfel</term><term>York state</term><term>York times</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">A long‐standing scholarly tradition regards professions, in general, and ethics rules, in particular, as “projects” of market control. It is no surprise, critics charge, that in the latest assault on the monopoly of the American legal profession–waged by multidisciplinary professional service firms–lawyers are hiding behind their ethics rules to protect their turf. In this article, I report on an extensive empirical study of conflict of interest in private legal practice and look comparatively at other fiduciaries, among them, accountants, psychotherapists, physicians, journalists, and academics. I investigate the role of ethics rules that seek to insure fiduciary loyalty in structuring the delivery of services. How does social and institutional change, roiling the fiduciary world, threaten disinterestedness and loyalty and how, if at all, do fiduciaries respond? How is the regulation of conflict of interest accomplished? Where are the conflicts rules most likely to be honored or ignored? What incentive structures encourage compliance? What are the costs and unexpected consequences of compliance? What is foregone? And is it all worth it? In what might come as a surprise to many, I find that the legal profession takes conflict of interest more seriously than many of the rest of us. As the title implies, legal practitioners largely travel alone, bushwhacking through the underbrush snarling the ethical high road. As critical scholarship predicted, lawyers do enjoy a monopoly at the end of the road. But this monopoly is achieved, not by restraint of trade or some other artifice or stratagem of market control, but by lack of competition. It seems that no one else is trudging alongside the lawyers. Lawyers are not necessarily more ethical than the others; they just behave more ethically–at least with respect to conflict of interest. The question is why. And what difference does it make?</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>fiduciary</json:string><json:string>social inquiry</json:string><json:string>insurer</json:string><json:string>disinterestedness</json:string><json:string>accounting firms</json:string><json:string>database</json:string><json:string>auditor</json:string><json:string>potential conflicts</json:string><json:string>ongoing</json:string><json:string>malpractice</json:string><json:string>software</json:string><json:string>exchange commission</json:string><json:string>advertiser</json:string><json:string>waiver</json:string><json:string>psychotherapist</json:string><json:string>spece</json:string><json:string>shapiro</json:string><json:string>multidisciplinary</json:string><json:string>public accountants</json:string><json:string>lateral</json:string><json:string>disqualification</json:string><json:string>financial interests</json:string><json:string>prospective client</json:string><json:string>american institute</json:string><json:string>professional conduct</json:string><json:string>oversight</json:string><json:string>large firms</json:string><json:string>prospective clients</json:string><json:string>professional responsibility</json:string><json:string>accountant</json:string><json:string>client</json:string><json:string>human services</json:string><json:string>former clients</json:string><json:string>positional</json:string><json:string>caplan</json:string><json:string>legal services</json:string><json:string>frankel</json:string><json:string>auditor independence</json:string><json:string>york times</json:string><json:string>collide</json:string><json:string>rodwin</json:string><json:string>february</json:string><json:string>shimm</json:string><json:string>smaller firms</json:string><json:string>model rules</json:string><json:string>coparties</json:string><json:string>audit clients</json:string><json:string>other clients</json:string><json:string>gatekeeper</json:string><json:string>larger firms</json:string><json:string>synergy</json:string><json:string>legal practice</json:string><json:string>paralegal</json:string><json:string>social control</json:string><json:string>confidentiality</json:string><json:string>grob</json:string><json:string>third parties</json:string><json:string>june</json:string><json:string>matter forms</json:string><json:string>academe</json:string><json:string>graduate students</json:string><json:string>legal profession</json:string><json:string>social organization</json:string><json:string>november</json:string><json:string>audit</json:string><json:string>laterally</json:string><json:string>ethics rules</json:string><json:string>conflicts screening</json:string><json:string>other firms</json:string><json:string>codefendant</json:string><json:string>irbs</json:string><json:string>gatekeeping</json:string><json:string>october</json:string><json:string>journalistic</json:string><json:string>ethical screens</json:string><json:string>welfel</json:string><json:string>angeles times</json:string><json:string>april</json:string><json:string>american association</json:string><json:string>clinical trials</json:string><json:string>downstate</json:string><json:string>july</json:string><json:string>many others</json:string><json:string>university professors</json:string><json:string>august</json:string><json:string>multidisciplinary practice</json:string><json:string>malpractice insurers</json:string><json:string>adverse interests</json:string><json:string>funding</json:string><json:string>expertise</json:string><json:string>disclosure</json:string><json:string>fiduciary obligations</json:string><json:string>adversarial</json:string><json:string>markie</json:string><json:string>many firms</json:string><json:string>news organizations</json:string><json:string>schuster</json:string><json:string>academic freedom</json:string><json:string>enron</json:string><json:string>screening devices</json:string><json:string>family members</json:string><json:string>january</json:string><json:string>biomedical</json:string><json:string>england journal</json:string><json:string>jaggar</json:string><json:string>advance consent</json:string><json:string>adversity</json:string><json:string>objectivity</json:string><json:string>regulator</json:string><json:string>conflict</json:string><json:string>american lawyer</json:string><json:string>chinese wall</json:string><json:string>tort</json:string><json:string>proprietary</json:string><json:string>financial conflicts</json:string><json:string>confidential information</json:string><json:string>positional conflicts</json:string><json:string>placebo</json:string><json:string>former client</json:string><json:string>first place</json:string><json:string>many respondents</json:string><json:string>insurance company</json:string><json:string>reputational</json:string><json:string>creditor</json:string><json:string>human subjects</json:string><json:string>prospective matter</json:string><json:string>many lawyers</json:string><json:string>aicpa</json:string><json:string>national institutes</json:string><json:string>prophylactic</json:string><json:string>nonaudit</json:string><json:string>clinical trial</json:string><json:string>states securities</json:string><json:string>gravitate</json:string><json:string>piper</json:string><json:string>dual relationships</json:string><json:string>accounting profession</json:string><json:string>billing number</json:string><json:string>december</json:string><json:string>branch offices</json:string><json:string>academic research</json:string><json:string>general accounting office</json:string><json:string>research findings</json:string><json:string>tenured</json:string><json:string>conflicts rules</json:string><json:string>potential conflict</json:string><json:string>financial statements</json:string><json:string>bottom line</json:string><json:string>public oversight board</json:string><json:string>academic institutions</json:string><json:string>equity interest</json:string><json:string>kritzer</json:string><json:string>social networks</json:string><json:string>pharmaceutical companies</json:string><json:string>insurance coverage</json:string><json:string>clinical research</json:string><json:string>control conflicts</json:string><json:string>news stories</json:string><json:string>huth</json:string><json:string>tangled loyalties</json:string><json:string>auditing</json:string><json:string>median</json:string><json:string>legal ethics</json:string><json:string>several respondents</json:string><json:string>economics consulting group</json:string><json:string>adverse parties</json:string><json:string>higher education</json:string><json:string>random sample</json:string><json:string>other fiduciaries</json:string><json:string>research subjects</json:string><json:string>business committee</json:string><json:string>peer review</json:string><json:string>small towns</json:string><json:string>insurance companies</json:string><json:string>client lists</json:string><json:string>conflicts database</json:string><json:string>host firm</json:string><json:string>firm clients</json:string><json:string>institutional conflicts</json:string><json:string>future conflicts</json:string><json:string>ethics codes</json:string><json:string>client consent</json:string><json:string>chinese walls</json:string><json:string>audit firms</json:string><json:string>board service</json:string><json:string>referral fees</json:string><json:string>family member</json:string><json:string>financial interest</json:string><json:string>financial stake</json:string><json:string>federal government</json:string><json:string>medical journals</json:string><json:string>legal work</json:string><json:string>fiduciary institutions</json:string><json:string>liability assurance society</json:string><json:string>public trust</json:string><json:string>prospective matters</json:string><json:string>recent years</json:string><json:string>biomedical research</json:string><json:string>lawyer</json:string><json:string>practitioner</json:string><json:string>respondent</json:string><json:string>accounting</json:string><json:string>researcher</json:string><json:string>andersen</json:string><json:string>colleague</json:string><json:string>triangular relationships</json:string><json:string>false positives</json:string><json:string>artificial intelligence</json:string><json:string>financial ties</json:string><json:string>first amendment</json:string><json:string>future business</json:string><json:string>fourth estate</json:string><json:string>client relations</json:string><json:string>major advertisers</json:string><json:string>financial support</json:string><json:string>intellectual property</json:string><json:string>fiduciary services</json:string><json:string>consulting services</json:string><json:string>news coverage</json:string><json:string>business partners</json:string><json:string>public companies</json:string><json:string>third party</json:string><json:string>market control</json:string><json:string>model rule</json:string><json:string>other hand</json:string><json:string>expert testimony</json:string><json:string>arthur andersen</json:string><json:string>family therapy</json:string><json:string>stock options</json:string><json:string>board memberships</json:string><json:string>other lawyers</json:string><json:string>other institutions</json:string><json:string>university research</json:string><json:string>institutional review boards</json:string><json:string>federal support</json:string><json:string>scientific research</json:string><json:string>ongoing relationships</json:string><json:string>advance waivers</json:string><json:string>university technology managers</json:string><json:string>nonaudit services</json:string><json:string>different kinds</json:string><json:string>public interest</json:string><json:string>significant conflicts</json:string><json:string>fiduciary obligation</json:string><json:string>important clients</json:string><json:string>blumenthal</json:string><json:string>bowie</json:string><json:string>disciplinary</json:string><json:string>investor</json:string><json:string>broker</json:string><json:string>credibility</json:string><json:string>firm</json:string><json:string>individual lawyers</json:string><json:string>entire firm</json:string><json:string>american journal</json:string><json:string>group members</json:string><json:string>independent auditor</json:string><json:string>regulatory process</json:string><json:string>social ties</json:string><json:string>business considerations</json:string><json:string>accounting firm</json:string><json:string>firm size</json:string><json:string>beauty contests</json:string><json:string>audit services</json:string><json:string>powerful clients</json:string><json:string>multiple roles</json:string><json:string>ongoing case</json:string><json:string>legal business</json:string><json:string>advisory panel</json:string><json:string>research design</json:string><json:string>private practitioners</json:string><json:string>private sector</json:string><json:string>chief accountant</json:string><json:string>proprietary information</json:string><json:string>rare occasions</json:string><json:string>other states</json:string><json:string>ethical rules</json:string><json:string>client interests</json:string><json:string>corporate clients</json:string><json:string>same time</json:string><json:string>other side</json:string><json:string>electronic databases</json:string><json:string>adverse party</json:string><json:string>news media</json:string><json:string>great deal</json:string><json:string>index cards</json:string><json:string>last decade</json:string><json:string>government agencies</json:string><json:string>academic world</json:string><json:string>illinois lawyers</json:string><json:string>other professions</json:string><json:string>lawyer mobility</json:string><json:string>different ways</json:string><json:string>other conflicts</json:string><json:string>ivory tower</json:string><json:string>firm growth</json:string><json:string>hourly billing</json:string><json:string>mobile lawyer</json:string><json:string>annual report</json:string><json:string>ethical screen</json:string><json:string>former firm</json:string><json:string>prophylactic device</json:string><json:string>prospective engagement</json:string><json:string>national science foundation</json:string><json:string>executive committee</json:string><json:string>oxford university press</json:string><json:string>advance consents</json:string><json:string>substantial number</json:string><json:string>free speech</json:string><json:string>fiduciary landscape</json:string><json:string>single lawyer</json:string><json:string>legal practitioners</json:string><json:string>deep pockets</json:string><json:string>financial institutions</json:string><json:string>chicago firms</json:string><json:string>academic researchers</json:string><json:string>georgetown journal</json:string><json:string>expert witnesses</json:string><json:string>chicago press</json:string><json:string>illinois rules</json:string><json:string>illinois supreme court rules</json:string><json:string>ownership interest</json:string><json:string>insurance defense</json:string><json:string>legal representation</json:string><json:string>corporate families</json:string><json:string>competitor</json:string><json:string>memoranda</json:string><json:string>scenario</json:string><json:string>lawsuit</json:string><json:string>regulatory</json:string><json:string>screening</json:string><json:string>clout</json:string><json:string>billing</json:string><json:string>small town</json:string><json:string>many cases</json:string><json:string>other respondents</json:string><json:string>conflicts waivers</json:string><json:string>board members</json:string><json:string>legal counsel</json:string><json:string>adverse position</json:string><json:string>columbia journalism review</json:string><json:string>engagement letters</json:string><json:string>typhoid marys</json:string><json:string>contingency fees</json:string><json:string>ethical walls</json:string><json:string>cure conflicts</json:string><json:string>compensation arrangements</json:string><json:string>large city</json:string><json:string>multiple clients</json:string><json:string>inherent conflicts</json:string><json:string>sports teams</json:string><json:string>confidentiality rules</json:string><json:string>more lawyers</json:string><json:string>boston globe</json:string><json:string>fiduciary role</json:string><json:string>multiple hats</json:string><json:string>steady stream</json:string><json:string>treatment decisions</json:string><json:string>particular client</json:string><json:string>private insurance companies</json:string><json:string>regulatory attention</json:string><json:string>client confidences</json:string><json:string>disqualification rule</json:string><json:string>best interests</json:string><json:string>attorney registration</json:string><json:string>individual therapy</json:string><json:string>family counseling</json:string><json:string>best interest</json:string><json:string>securities markets</json:string><json:string>disciplinary commission</json:string><json:string>family system</json:string><json:string>classic problem</json:string><json:string>individual client</json:string><json:string>public accountant</json:string><json:string>ethical obligations</json:string><json:string>fiduciary organizations</json:string><json:string>human subject protection</json:string><json:string>accounting scandals</json:string><json:string>other services</json:string><json:string>multidisciplinary practices</json:string><json:string>smaller ones</json:string><json:string>york state</json:string><json:string>fiduciary relationships</json:string><json:string>annual survey</json:string><json:string>accounting rules</json:string><json:string>capital markets</json:string><json:string>current clients</json:string><json:string>business interests</json:string><json:string>interests collide</json:string><json:string>median size</json:string><json:string>practice section</json:string><json:string>other developments</json:string><json:string>fiduciary principle</json:string><json:string>consulting practices</json:string><json:string>national survey</json:string><json:string>mobile lawyers</json:string><json:string>fiduciary duties</json:string><json:string>disqualification motion</json:string><json:string>other companies</json:string><json:string>consulting business</json:string><json:string>malpractice claim</json:string><json:string>incentive structures</json:string><json:string>defense costs</json:string><json:string>disclosure approach</json:string><json:string>federal agencies</json:string><json:string>private organizations</json:string><json:string>human resources</json:string><json:string>legal system</json:string><json:string>client loyalty</json:string><json:string>mass torts</json:string><json:string>news sources</json:string><json:string>malpractice insurance</json:string><json:string>legal talent</json:string><json:string>human research protections</json:string><json:string>restaurant reviewers</json:string><json:string>advertising revenues</json:string><json:string>daily newspapers</json:string><json:string>risky practices</json:string><json:string>client adversities</json:string><json:string>business side</json:string><json:string>professional liability insurers</json:string><json:string>social change</json:string><json:string>commercial interests</json:string><json:string>risk aversion</json:string><json:string>media outlets</json:string><json:string>powerful incentive</json:string><json:string>national news council</json:string><json:string>firm conflicts</json:string><json:string>book proposal</json:string><json:string>large numbers</json:string><json:string>opportunity costs</json:string><json:string>personal relationships</json:string><json:string>american newspapers</json:string><json:string>professional ethics</json:string><json:string>small number</json:string><json:string>largest firms</json:string><json:string>conflicts committees</json:string><json:string>professional responsibility committees</json:string><json:string>legal action</json:string><json:string>graduate student</json:string><json:string>grant application</json:string><json:string>research hats</json:string><json:string>legal fees</json:string><json:string>private practice</json:string><json:string>senior partners</json:string><json:string>conflicts committee</json:string><json:string>public colleges</json:string><json:string>client company</json:string><json:string>faculty appointments</json:string><json:string>other sources</json:string><json:string>much time</json:string><json:string>academic life</json:string><json:string>research universities</json:string><json:string>diverse sources</json:string><json:string>twentieth century fund</json:string><json:string>specialized expertise</json:string><json:string>corporate executives</json:string><json:string>firm attorney</json:string><json:string>estate planning</json:string><json:string>paper records</json:string><json:string>impersonal trust</json:string><json:string>industry support</json:string><json:string>capitation payments</json:string><json:string>california press</json:string><json:string>scholarly literature</json:string><json:string>public officials</json:string><json:string>judicial system</json:string><json:string>mass media</json:string><json:string>faculty members</json:string><json:string>incompatible interests</json:string><json:string>consulting fees</json:string><json:string>issue conflicts</json:string><json:string>community organizations</json:string><json:string>expert witness</json:string><json:string>ongoing clients</json:string><json:string>other parties</json:string><json:string>control group</json:string><json:string>legal rules</json:string><json:string>chicago lawyers</json:string><json:string>service firms</json:string><json:string>clinical investigators</json:string><json:string>side effects</json:string><json:string>future stream</json:string><json:string>client base</json:string><json:string>practice groups</json:string><json:string>court opinions</json:string><json:string>others note</json:string><json:string>research sponsors</json:string><json:string>weimar republic</json:string><json:string>book reviews</json:string><json:string>academic conflicts</json:string><json:string>peer reviewers</json:string><json:string>research relationships</json:string><json:string>business conflicts</json:string><json:string>ethical issues</json:string><json:string>pilot interviews</json:string><json:string>significant role</json:string><json:string>prospective business</json:string><json:string>financial incentives</json:string><json:string>inquiry</json:string><json:string>journalist</json:string><json:string>investigator</json:string><json:string>adversary</json:string><json:string>liability</json:string><json:string>spouse</json:string><json:string>pharmaceutical</json:string><json:string>reviewer</json:string><json:string>ethics</json:string><json:string>adverse</json:string><json:string>advocacy</json:string><json:string>litigation</json:string><json:string>disinterested</json:string><json:string>lucrative</json:string><json:string>watchdog</json:string><json:string>counselor</json:string><json:string>incompatible</json:string><json:string>rapid growth</json:string><json:string>lucrative business</json:string><json:string>docketing programs</json:string><json:string>computer hardware</json:string><json:string>other firm clients</json:string><json:string>conflicts searches</json:string><json:string>prospective case</json:string><json:string>supreme court</json:string><json:string>similar names</json:string><json:string>institutional investors</json:string><json:string>trade secrets</json:string><json:string>firm newsletters</json:string><json:string>lower costs</json:string><json:string>billable hours</json:string><json:string>legal disputes</json:string><json:string>regulatory infrastructure</json:string><json:string>routine procedures</json:string><json:string>ongoing client</json:string><json:string>more respondents</json:string><json:string>auditor independence requirements</json:string><json:string>special procedures</json:string><json:string>prospective candidate</json:string><json:string>core values</json:string><json:string>prophylactic measures</json:string><json:string>substantial client contacts</json:string><json:string>support staff</json:string><json:string>lateral partners</json:string><json:string>substantial book</json:string><json:string>mobile business</json:string><json:string>lateral candidates</json:string><json:string>substantive monopoly</json:string><json:string>serious conflicts</json:string><json:string>russell sage foundation</json:string><json:string>same firm</json:string><json:string>enforcement mechanisms</json:string><json:string>direct adversity</json:string><json:string>regulatory structure</json:string><json:string>unrelated matters</json:string><json:string>face conflicts</json:string><json:string>ethnic group members</json:string><json:string>particular matter</json:string><json:string>move laterally</json:string><json:string>many observers</json:string><json:string>social network</json:string><json:string>midwestern state</json:string><json:string>private interests</json:string><json:string>annual list</json:string><json:string>familial investments</json:string><json:string>other business interests</json:string><json:string>hostile takeover</json:string><json:string>vast majority</json:string><json:string>voice mail messages</json:string><json:string>billing records</json:string><json:string>case files</json:string><json:string>much business</json:string><json:string>ethics expertise</json:string><json:string>significant clients</json:string><json:string>significant future business</json:string><json:string>firm policies</json:string><json:string>large number</json:string><json:string>many hats</json:string><json:string>firm declines</json:string><json:string>advocatewitness rule</json:string><json:string>various hats</json:string><json:string>city attorneys</json:string><json:string>certain positions</json:string><json:string>casual conversations</json:string><json:string>other cases</json:string><json:string>public defenders</json:string><json:string>good number</json:string><json:string>high levels</json:string><json:string>firm structure</json:string><json:string>other artifice</json:string><json:string>prospective engagements</json:string><json:string>special expertise</json:string><json:string>good news</json:string><json:string>other members</json:string><json:string>future opportunities</json:string><json:string>responsible parties</json:string><json:string>public sector</json:string><json:string>superfund site</json:string><json:string>particular industry</json:string><json:string>business committees</json:string><json:string>migratory lawyers</json:string><json:string>disqualification rules</json:string><json:string>personal experience</json:string><json:string>private clients</json:string><json:string>scholarly tradition</json:string><json:string>fire walls</json:string><json:string>nonprofit organizations</json:string><json:string>great wall</json:string><json:string>other sorts</json:string><json:string>quarantined colleague</json:string><json:string>branch office</json:string><json:string>computer files</json:string><json:string>confidential procedures</json:string><json:string>interoffice mail</json:string><json:string>fewer conflicts</json:string><json:string>strategic alliances</json:string><json:string>legal bills</json:string><json:string>final bill</json:string><json:string>firm mailing list</json:string><json:string>typical firm</json:string><json:string>american lawyers</json:string><json:string>medical patients</json:string><json:string>scarce resources</json:string><json:string>many attractions</json:string><json:string>business generation</json:string><json:string>medical profession</json:string><json:string>order tests</json:string><json:string>washington post</json:string><json:string>preventive care</json:string><json:string>care companies</json:string><json:string>limit care</json:string><json:string>common feature</json:string><json:string>experimental psychologist</json:string><json:string>personal values</json:string><json:string>professional autonomy</json:string><json:string>public service</json:string><json:string>rural lawyers</json:string><json:string>medical laboratories</json:string><json:string>urban counterparts</json:string><json:string>service providers</json:string><json:string>medical devices</json:string><json:string>firm client</json:string><json:string>split fees</json:string><json:string>real estate</json:string><json:string>other forms</json:string><json:string>angeks times</json:string><json:string>client boards</json:string><json:string>many kinds</json:string><json:string>actual conflicts</json:string><json:string>direct stake</json:string><json:string>environmental pollution</json:string><json:string>case studies</json:string><json:string>social distance</json:string><json:string>little choice</json:string><json:string>labor unions</json:string><json:string>client advocate</json:string><json:string>social inquiry tion</json:string><json:string>board member</json:string><json:string>empirical studies</json:string><json:string>confidentiality issues</json:string><json:string>group counseling</json:string><json:string>legal questions</json:string><json:string>first amendment protections</json:string><json:string>legal marketplace</json:string><json:string>other words</json:string><json:string>appellate courts</json:string><json:string>social capital</json:string><json:string>alternative dispute resolution</json:string><json:string>multiple parties</json:string><json:string>risk management</json:string><json:string>association insurance trust</json:string><json:string>chief justice burger</json:string><json:string>greater incentive</json:string><json:string>whole host</json:string><json:string>egregious practices</json:string><json:string>compensation schemes</json:string><json:string>financial wherewithal</json:string><json:string>corporate finance</json:string><json:string>client relationship</json:string><json:string>major corporations</json:string><json:string>audits america</json:string><json:string>largest accounting firms</json:string><json:string>ethical status</json:string><json:string>many clients</json:string><json:string>institutional change</json:string><json:string>corporate management</json:string><json:string>consulting work</json:string><json:string>model rule explanation</json:string><json:string>defense contractors</json:string><json:string>special supplement</json:string><json:string>fiduciary world</json:string><json:string>national accounting firms</json:string><json:string>record year</json:string><json:string>accounting ethics</json:string><json:string>fiscal year</json:string><json:string>ethical requirements</json:string><json:string>individual conflicts</json:string><json:string>securities laws</json:string><json:string>financial condition</json:string><json:string>public perception</json:string><json:string>legal precedent</json:string><json:string>many conflicts</json:string><json:string>investment bankers</json:string><json:string>drug companies</json:string><json:string>ethical problems</json:string><json:string>appearance standards</json:string><json:string>insurance defense work</json:string><json:string>positional boundaries</json:string><json:string>substantial revenue</json:string><json:string>switch auditors</json:string><json:string>disclosure requirements</json:string><json:string>former director</json:string><json:string>junior auditors</json:string><json:string>mandatory rotation</json:string><json:string>such information</json:string><json:string>policy limits</json:string><json:string>insurance contract</json:string><json:string>smaller communities</json:string><json:string>business relationships</json:string><json:string>joint ventures</json:string><json:string>englewood cliffs</json:string><json:string>internet services</json:string><json:string>firm partners</json:string><json:string>management positions</json:string><json:string>classic conflict</json:string><json:string>professional associations</json:string><json:string>reputational damage</json:string><json:string>loss leader</json:string><json:string>ancillary services</json:string><json:string>acquisition candidates</json:string><json:string>academic discourse</json:string><json:string>internal audit services</json:string><json:string>true client</json:string><json:string>total revenues</json:string><json:string>social psychology</json:string><json:string>corporate value consulting business</json:string><json:string>market consulting services</json:string><json:string>integral part</json:string><json:string>accounting issue</json:string><json:string>remedial work</json:string><json:string>accounting issues</json:string><json:string>major source</json:string><json:string>legal landscape</json:string><json:string>national science board</json:string><json:string>independent auditors</json:string><json:string>proper defense</json:string><json:string>stock brokers</json:string><json:string>vigorous advocacy</json:string><json:string>significant source</json:string><json:string>professional practice</json:string><json:string>audit failures</json:string><json:string>specialized knowledge</json:string><json:string>legal liability</json:string><json:string>social scientists</json:string><json:string>model code</json:string><json:string>quality controls</json:string><json:string>professional journalists</json:string><json:string>fiduciary responsibilities</json:string><json:string>same effect</json:string><json:string>political commitments</json:string><json:string>ethical norms</json:string><json:string>trust relationships</json:string><json:string>advertising supplements</json:string><json:string>public relations firms</json:string><json:string>news organization</json:string><json:string>favorable editorial content</json:string><json:string>equity interests</json:string><json:string>pilot study</json:string><json:string>empirical research</json:string><json:string>other client</json:string><json:string>local businesses</json:string><json:string>different aversions</json:string><json:string>lung cancer</json:string><json:string>corporate governance</json:string><json:string>major advertiser</json:string><json:string>editorial sides</json:string><json:string>chicago tribune</json:string><json:string>insider trading</json:string><json:string>intimate relationships</json:string><json:string>significant others</json:string><json:string>many news organizations</json:string><json:string>more women</json:string><json:string>advertising dollars</json:string><json:string>familial relationships</json:string><json:string>such conflicts</json:string><json:string>social connections</json:string><json:string>broadcast media</json:string><json:string>community service</json:string><json:string>client consents</json:string><json:string>media organizations</json:string><json:string>news story</json:string><json:string>eternal triangle</json:string><json:string>front page</json:string><json:string>substantial resources</json:string><json:string>dollar offer</json:string><json:string>same subject</json:string><json:string>journalistic ethics</json:string><json:string>mere window dressing</json:string><json:string>journalistic objectivity</json:string><json:string>monastic life</json:string><json:string>linguistic trojan horses</json:string><json:string>national data book</json:string><json:string>ulterior motives</json:string><json:string>single matter</json:string><json:string>litigation context</json:string><json:string>substantial costs</json:string><json:string>ethics committees</json:string><json:string>professional students</json:string><json:string>eleventh hour</json:string><json:string>substantial amount</json:string><json:string>more detail</json:string><json:string>scholarly research</json:string><json:string>disciplinary action</json:string><json:string>academic role</json:string><json:string>education statistics</json:string><json:string>investment banking</json:string><json:string>screening device</json:string><json:string>ongoing research</json:string><json:string>fiduciary relationship</json:string><json:string>particular case</json:string><json:string>contingent fees</json:string><json:string>change jobs</json:string><json:string>financial reward</json:string><json:string>national center</json:string><json:string>term appointments</json:string><json:string>disinterestednessand loyalty</json:string><json:string>instructional faculty</json:string><json:string>multiyear contracts</json:string><json:string>first client</json:string><json:string>latter firms</json:string><json:string>ranking minority member</json:string><json:string>development expenditures</json:string><json:string>second firm</json:string><json:string>legal education workshops</json:string><json:string>first firm</json:string><json:string>central focus</json:string><json:string>more conflicts</json:string><json:string>family tree</json:string><json:string>basic research</json:string><json:string>executive branch</json:string><json:string>corporate client</json:string><json:string>fault lines</json:string><json:string>superior court</json:string><json:string>industry funding</json:string><json:string>firm mergers</json:string><json:string>smallest firms</json:string><json:string>other corporations</json:string><json:string>firm millions</json:string><json:string>different preferences</json:string><json:string>special strains</json:string><json:string>first right</json:string><json:string>research discoveries</json:string><json:string>conflicts review</json:string><json:string>commercial applications</json:string><json:string>business judgments</json:string><json:string>university researchers</json:string><json:string>strategic advantage</json:string><json:string>partnership meetings</json:string><json:string>potential risks</json:string><json:string>businesshigher education forum</json:string><json:string>governmental affairs</json:string><json:string>many masters</json:string><json:string>private company</json:string><json:string>private industry</json:string><json:string>personal recognition</json:string><json:string>unmerited gains</json:string><json:string>positive results</json:string><json:string>clinical researchers</json:string><json:string>research protocol</json:string><json:string>drug trials</json:string><json:string>department heads</json:string><json:string>placebo control group</json:string><json:string>same cast</json:string><json:string>legal research</json:string><json:string>practice areas</json:string><json:string>social sciences</json:string><json:string>lawyer business ethics</json:string><json:string>conflicts issues</json:string><json:string>experimental drug</json:string><json:string>social fabric</json:string><json:string>experimental treatment</json:string><json:string>conflictsof interest</json:string><json:string>clinical trial subjects</json:string><json:string>more time</json:string><json:string>private support</json:string><json:string>public support</json:string><json:string>research money</json:string><json:string>corporate sponsors</json:string><json:string>conflicts czars</json:string><json:string>government grants</json:string><json:string>government funding</json:string><json:string>research questions</json:string><json:string>government scientists</json:string><json:string>research topics</json:string><json:string>flip side</json:string><json:string>prepublication review</json:string><json:string>mass tort class action</json:string><json:string>research support</json:string><json:string>considerable experience</json:string><json:string>ghost authors</json:string><json:string>sexual harassment</json:string><json:string>adversarial process</json:string><json:string>legal advocates</json:string><json:string>academic standards</json:string><json:string>future dangerousness</json:string><json:string>professional standards</json:string><json:string>impartial educator</json:string><json:string>scholarly norms</json:string><json:string>other students</json:string><json:string>research grants</json:string><json:string>sexual relationship</json:string><json:string>limited number</json:string><json:string>university administrators</json:string><json:string>diverse interests</json:string><json:string>young scholar</json:string><json:string>median firm</json:string><json:string>teaching loads</json:string><json:string>other colleagues</json:string><json:string>senior partner</json:string><json:string>administrative personnel</json:string><json:string>advisory groups</json:string><json:string>oldest respondents</json:string><json:string>elimination approach</json:string><json:string>median size firm</json:string><json:string>drug studies</json:string><json:string>scientific independence</json:string><json:string>human research subjects</json:string><json:string>large corporations</json:string><json:string>joint venturers</json:string><json:string>michigan press</json:string><json:string>principal shareholders</json:string><json:string>limited partners</json:string><json:string>states department</json:string><json:string>turbulent environments</json:string><json:string>fiduciary principles</json:string><json:string>business affiliation</json:string><json:string>fiduciary settings</json:string><json:string>many fiduciaries</json:string><json:string>accounting horizons</json:string><json:string>institutional review board</json:string><json:string>private insurers</json:string><json:string>particular clients</json:string><json:string>legal malpractice insurers</json:string><json:string>liability costs</json:string><json:string>legal representatives</json:string><json:string>liability insurers</json:string><json:string>unsophisticated clients</json:string><json:string>disqualification battles</json:string><json:string>matter officers</json:string><json:string>early stages</json:string><json:string>potential future business</json:string><json:string>major customers</json:string><json:string>business transaction</json:string><json:string>immediate family member</json:string><json:string>role conflict</json:string><json:string>annual meeting</json:string><json:string>several reasons</json:string><json:string>political capital</json:string><json:string>better lawyers</json:string><json:string>quorum books</json:string><json:string>same industry</json:string><json:string>particular firms</json:string><json:string>consulting operations</json:string><json:string>rowman littlefield</json:string><json:string>multiple offices</json:string><json:string>wall street journal</json:string><json:string>joint representation</json:string><json:string>american journalism review</json:string><json:string>literal name</json:string><json:string>drummond rennie</json:string><json:string>principal business</json:string><json:string>institutional</json:string><json:string>consulting</json:string><json:string>ubiquitous</json:string><json:string>medication</json:string><json:string>assorted</json:string><json:string>fee</json:string><json:string>physician</json:string><json:string>confidential</json:string><json:string>incentive</json:string><json:string>transactions</json:string><json:string>prospective</json:string><json:string>obligation</json:string><json:string>dissemination</json:string><json:string>ancillary</json:string><json:string>takeover</json:string><json:string>transaction</json:string><json:string>substantive</json:string><json:string>organizational</json:string><json:string>consent</json:string><json:string>referral</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Susan P. Shapiro</name><affiliations><json:string>Senior research fellow, American Bar Foundation, Chicago. This research was supported by the American Bar Foundation and National Science Foundation grant SES‐9223615. Special thanks to Benjamin Casper, LKesha Threats, Bryant Garth, Mary Rose, Carole Silver, Ann Southworth, Jack Heinz, M. Peter Moser, and to the lawyers who generously shared their time and experience with thoughtful reflection, colorful detail, and unusual candor. Some material presented in this article is drawn from my book Tangled Loyalties: Conflict of Interest in Legal Practice, published by the University of Michigan Press (Shapiro 2002).</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><articleId><json:string>LSI87</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-SCDFMG6P-Z</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>A long‐standing scholarly tradition regards professions, in general, and ethics rules, in particular, as “projects” of market control. It is no surprise, critics charge, that in the latest assault on the monopoly of the American legal profession–waged by multidisciplinary professional service firms–lawyers are hiding behind their ethics rules to protect their turf. In this article, I report on an extensive empirical study of conflict of interest in private legal practice and look comparatively at other fiduciaries, among them, accountants, psychotherapists, physicians, journalists, and academics. I investigate the role of ethics rules that seek to insure fiduciary loyalty in structuring the delivery of services. How does social and institutional change, roiling the fiduciary world, threaten disinterestedness and loyalty and how, if at all, do fiduciaries respond? How is the regulation of conflict of interest accomplished? Where are the conflicts rules most likely to be honored or ignored? What incentive structures encourage compliance? What are the costs and unexpected consequences of compliance? What is foregone? And is it all worth it? In what might come as a surprise to many, I find that the legal profession takes conflict of interest more seriously than many of the rest of us. As the title implies, legal practitioners largely travel alone, bushwhacking through the underbrush snarling the ethical high road. As critical scholarship predicted, lawyers do enjoy a monopoly at the end of the road. But this monopoly is achieved, not by restraint of trade or some other artifice or stratagem of market control, but by lack of competition. It seems that no one else is trudging alongside the lawyers. Lawyers are not necessarily more ethical than the others; they just behave more ethically–at least with respect to conflict of interest. The question is why. And what difference does it make?</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>10</score><pdfWordCount>85176</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>514237</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>182</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>468 x 719.759 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>296</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1913</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>0</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Bushwhacking the Ethical High Road: Conflict of Interest in the Practice of Law and Real Life</title><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Law & Social Inquiry</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1747-4469</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0897-6546</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1747-4469</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>LSI</json:string></publisherId><volume>28</volume><issue>1</issue><pages><first>87</first><last>268</last><total>182</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>between 1990 and 1993</json:string><json:string>1981</json:string><json:string>1968</json:string><json:string>1970</json:string><json:string>1997</json:string><json:string>1990s</json:string><json:string>2001</json:string><json:string>The Twentieth Century</json:string><json:string>1998</json:string><json:string>1976</json:string><json:string>2002</json:string><json:string>1930s</json:string><json:string>1983</json:string><json:string>1999</json:string><json:string>1970s</json:string><json:string>1966</json:string><json:string>2003</json:string><json:string>1995</json:string><json:string>1933</json:string><json:string>1989</json:string><json:string>1991</json:string><json:string>1980</json:string><json:string>1980s</json:string><json:string>1996</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission</json:string><json:string>National Science Foundation</json:string><json:string>Exchange Commission, Office of the Chief Accountant</json:string><json:string>Division of Enforcement</json:string><json:string>Department of Health and Human services</json:string><json:string>American Medical Association</json:string><json:string>Air Force</json:string><json:string>Department of Health and Human Services</json:string><json:string>Widget, Inc.</json:string><json:string>American Bar Foundation</json:string><json:string>Columbia University</json:string><json:string>Committee on Lawyer Business Ethics</json:string><json:string>Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation</json:string><json:string>Law & Economics Consulting Group, Inc.</json:string><json:string>Business‐Higher Education Forum</json:string><json:string>New York State Bar Association</json:string><json:string>General Instruments</json:string><json:string>Society of Professional Journalists</json:string><json:string>American Bar Association, Commission on Multidisciplinary Practice</json:string><json:string>Britons Criticize US. Scientists for Halting Test of Cancer Drug</json:string><json:string>Human Research Protections</json:string><json:string>Attorneys' Liability Assurance Society</json:string><json:string>Public Oversight Board</json:string><json:string>American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, SEC Practice Section</json:string><json:string>Public Oversight Board, Advisory Panel on Auditor Independence</json:string><json:string>U. S. Department of Health and Human Services</json:string><json:string>Financial Information Systems Design</json:string><json:string>United States Department of Health and Human Services</json:string><json:string>University of Massachusetts</json:string><json:string>Illinois Supreme Court Rules</json:string><json:string>Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation</json:string><json:string>American Bar Association</json:string><json:string>University of Michigan Press</json:string><json:string>See United States Securities and Exchange</json:string><json:string>American Psychological Association</json:string><json:string>American Law Institute</json:string><json:string>AICPA</json:string><json:string>Special Supplement: Annual Survey of National Accounting Firms</json:string><json:string>Public Oversight Board, Panel on Audit</json:string><json:string>National News Council</json:string><json:string>See American Bar Association, Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility</json:string><json:string>American Bar Association Section of Business Law</json:string><json:string>National Coalition for Universities</json:string><json:string>United States Securities and Exchange</json:string><json:string>National Institutes of Health</json:string><json:string>U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General</json:string><json:string>American Psychological Association Insurance Trust</json:string><json:string>Quality Control Inquiry Committee and Public Oversight Board, the Accounting Standards Executive Committee</json:string><json:string>American Association of University Professors</json:string><json:string>National Institutes of Health Office of Research Integrity</json:string><json:string>National Research Council Surveys of Earned Doctorates</json:string><json:string>Research Risks</json:string><json:string>The National Data Book</json:string><json:string>National Data Book</json:string><json:string>Research and Scholarship</json:string><json:string>National Science Board</json:string><json:string>Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility</json:string><json:string>U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the Chief Accountant</json:string><json:string>University of California</json:string><json:string>Illinois State Bar Association</json:string><json:string>U. S. General Accounting Office</json:string><json:string>Association of University Technology Managers</json:string><json:string>American Medical</json:string><json:string>American Association of University Profes</json:string><json:string>See American Bar Association</json:string><json:string>American Psychiatric Association</json:string><json:string>American Institute of Certified Public Accountants</json:string><json:string>National Accounting Firms</json:string><json:string>American Lawyer</json:string><json:string>Congress</json:string><json:string>American Bar Association, Section of Business Law and the Center for Continuing Legal Education</json:string><json:string>Illinois CPA Society</json:string><json:string>Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois</json:string><json:string>National Institute of Health</json:string><json:string>Office of Inspector General</json:string><json:string>Mitchdl B Co</json:string><json:string>Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois</json:string><json:string>ABC Corp</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>M. Peter</json:string><json:string>George Will</json:string><json:string>Rodwin</json:string><json:string>Arnold Relman</json:string><json:string>James Grigson</json:string><json:string>Arthur Young</json:string><json:string>Lawrence Grossman</json:string><json:string>George W. Bush</json:string><json:string>Their</json:string><json:string>David Shaw</json:string><json:string>Stone</json:string><json:string>Susan P. Shapiro</json:string><json:string>Accountants</json:string><json:string>Pay</json:string><json:string>Economists</json:string><json:string>Backlar</json:string><json:string>Marc Rodwin</json:string><json:string>Exxon</json:string><json:string>Richard Abel</json:string><json:string>Florida State</json:string><json:string>F. Supp</json:string><json:string>Peer</json:string><json:string>Services</json:string><json:string>Andersen Worldwide</json:string><json:string>N.D. Ohio</json:string><json:string>Leonard Minsky</json:string><json:string>Jimmy Carter</json:string><json:string>The</json:string><json:string>Margolin</json:string><json:string>U.S. Securities</json:string><json:string>Parties</json:string><json:string>Annual Survey</json:string><json:string>Justice Burger</json:string><json:string>Mary Rose</json:string><json:string>Jurists</json:string><json:string>Ronald Reagan</json:string><json:string>Effectiveness</json:string><json:string>Jack Heinz</json:string><json:string>Press</json:string><json:string>Court Rules</json:string><json:string>Doctors</json:string><json:string>Exchange</json:string><json:string>ABA Ethics</json:string><json:string>Association</json:string><json:string>Continuing</json:string><json:string>Ann Southworth</json:string><json:string>ABA House</json:string><json:string>Benjamin Casper</json:string><json:string>Commission</json:string><json:string>Jeremy Halbreich</json:string><json:string>Michael Sutton</json:string><json:string>Andersen Legal</json:string><json:string>Illinois</json:string><json:string>Bryant Garth</json:string><json:string>Insurers</json:string><json:string>News</json:string><json:string>America</json:string><json:string>Time Warner</json:string><json:string>Death</json:string><json:string>Arthur Andersen</json:string><json:string>Gloria Steinem</json:string><json:string>Businesses</json:string><json:string>Client</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>New Ymk</json:string><json:string>D.C.</json:string><json:string>United States</json:string><json:string>Washington</json:string><json:string>Richmond</json:string><json:string>American</json:string><json:string>China</json:string><json:string>Europe</json:string><json:string>Los Angeles</json:string><json:string>America</json:string><json:string>Berkeley</json:string><json:string>Chicago</json:string><json:string>York</json:string><json:string>New Yurk</json:string><json:string>France</json:string><json:string>Weimar</json:string><json:string>Goldberg</json:string></placeName><ref_url><json:string>http://www.abanet.ocg/cpr/ethicsZk.html</json:string></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>American Psychological Association Insurance Trust 2002</json:string><json:string>Campbell 2000</json:string><json:string>Cimons 1989</json:string><json:string>Galanter 1974</json:string><json:string>Grob 1998</json:string><json:string>Phillips 1996</json:string><json:string>Roback et al. 1992</json:string><json:string>Goldstein 1985</json:string><json:string>Galanter and Palay 1991</json:string><json:string>Baker 1997</json:string><json:string>Soley and Craig 1992</json:string><json:string>Soley 1995</json:string><json:string>Hazard and Hodes 1990</json:string><json:string>McCrary et al. 2000</json:string><json:string>Moses and Martin 2001</json:string><json:string>Bazerman et al.</json:string><json:string>Zuckoff 1998</json:string><json:string>Morgenson 2002</json:string><json:string>Stelfox et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Davidson 1986</json:string><json:string>Speigler 1997</json:string><json:string>Lieberman (1994)</json:string><json:string>1981a, 1981b</json:string><json:string>Illinois Supreme Court Rules 1990</json:string><json:string>Gordon and Simon 1992</json:string><json:string>Fox 1997</json:string><json:string>Kahan 1997</json:string><json:string>Mifflin 1998</json:string><json:string>Drazen and Koski 2000, 1644</json:string><json:string>Mangan 2000</json:string><json:string>Rubenstein 1997</json:string><json:string>Cooter and Freedman 1991, 1050</json:string><json:string>Most Lawyers 2001</json:string><json:string>November 1998</json:string><json:string>Cooter and Freedman 1991</json:string><json:string>Korn 1997</json:string><json:string>Lavelle 2001</json:string><json:string>McRoberts et al. (2002)</json:string><json:string>Aldhizer and Cashell 1996</json:string><json:string>Birch and Cohn 2001</json:string><json:string>Flanagin et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Weiner 1985</json:string><json:string>Blumenthal 1996, 1294</json:string><json:string>Scientific Journals 1999</json:string><json:string>Jurkowitz 2000</json:string><json:string>Blumenthal et al. 1996</json:string><json:string>Burk 1993</json:string><json:string>Welfel 1998</json:string><json:string>Crenshaw and Fromson 1998</json:string><json:string>Ingram 1993</json:string><json:string>Hilts 1998</json:string><json:string>Loftus 1986</json:string><json:string>Bazerrnan et al. (1997)</json:string><json:string>Warner, Goldenhar, and McLaughlin 1992</json:string><json:string>Foster and Foster 1998</json:string><json:string>van Brunt and Walker 1998</json:string><json:string>Lo et al. 2000</json:string><json:string>Most Revenue 2001</json:string><json:string>Moore 1997</json:string><json:string>Jacobs 1996</json:string><json:string>Abel 1981</json:string><json:string>Barringer 1998</json:string><json:string>Kolata 2001</json:string><json:string>Roush, Marshall, and Vogel 1997</json:string><json:string>Saul 1996</json:string><json:string>Shapiro 1984</json:string><json:string>Shimm and Spece 1996a</json:string><json:string>Ethics 2000</json:string><json:string>Wehnvein 1998</json:string><json:string>Campbell 1984</json:string><json:string>Davis 1996</json:string><json:string>RobinsonaJacobs2002</json:string><json:string>Williams 1995</json:string><json:string>Prentice 2000</json:string><json:string>Otto 1989</json:string><json:string>Dees and Elias 1998</json:string><json:string>Shapiro 1989</json:string><json:string>Saltus 1998</json:string><json:string>Shimm and Spece 1991</json:string><json:string>Lehrman and Sharav 1997</json:string><json:string>Cimons, Getlin, and Maugh 1998</json:string><json:string>[1984]</json:string><json:string>Lavelle 1997</json:string><json:string>Martin and Kasper 2000, 1646</json:string><json:string>Emanuel and Steiner 1995</json:string><json:string>Frankel 1996,1299</json:string><json:string>Putka 1991</json:string><json:string>Rodwin ( 1998)</json:string><json:string>Kodish et al. 1996, 1289</json:string><json:string>Balestier 1998</json:string><json:string>Wunnicke 1989</json:string><json:string>Bowen 1985</json:string><json:string>Lo 1995</json:string><json:string>Hicks 1995</json:string><json:string>Shapiro 2002</json:string><json:string>Frankel 2000</json:string><json:string>Rockness et al. 2001</json:string><json:string>Clifford 1997; Shaw 199813, 1998c</json:string><json:string>Blumenthal 1996, 1292</json:string><json:string>Bailey 1984</json:string><json:string>Petersen 1998b</json:string><json:string>Horton 1997</json:string><json:string>Rodwin 1993, 1995</json:string><json:string>Kritzer et al. 1984</json:string><json:string>Roey et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Landon 1990</json:string><json:string>Gibeaut 1998</json:string><json:string>Markie 1994</json:string><json:string>Baughman 1987</json:string><json:string>Reichard 1998, p. 43</json:string><json:string>Neaves and Wildenthal 1993</json:string><json:string>Cottell and Perlin 1990</json:string><json:string>American Association of University Professors, between 1991 and 1995</json:string><json:string>Cannon 1998</json:string><json:string>Vincent 1996</json:string><json:string>McLucas and Eckert 2001</json:string><json:string>Cook et al. 1992</json:string><json:string>Cimons et al. 1998</json:string><json:string>Shaw 1998b</json:string><json:string>Kneier 1976</json:string><json:string>Rennie and Flanagin 1994</json:string><json:string>Cho et al. 2000</json:string><json:string>Glater 2002</json:string><json:string>Finn 1990</json:string><json:string>MacCoun 1998</json:string><json:string>February 2002</json:string><json:string>Hansen and Hansen 1993</json:string><json:string>Pachella 1986</json:string><json:string>Blumenstyk 1993</json:string><json:string>Okie 2001</json:string><json:string>Coyle 1998</json:string><json:string>Frankel 1996, 1303</json:string><json:string>Altman 1994</json:string><json:string>Turner 2001</json:string><json:string>Martin and Kasper 2000</json:string><json:string>Greenberg and Shuman 1997</json:string><json:string>Strasburger et al.</json:string><json:string>Welch 1997</json:string><json:string>Gilson 1990</json:string><json:string>Heinz and Laumann (1982)</json:string><json:string>Shapiro 1987</json:string><json:string>National Science Foundation 1998</json:string><json:string>Wehrwein 1998</json:string><json:string>Gross and Fleming 1982</json:string><json:string>Speigler 1997; Barkume, 1996</json:string><json:string>Savin 1973</json:string><json:string>McCloskey, Egeth, and McKenna 1986</json:string><json:string>Frankel 1996, 1299</json:string><json:string>Frankel 1996</json:string><json:string>Garth 1993</json:string><json:string>Zimbardo 1973</json:string><json:string>Milgram 1974</json:string><json:string>Curran 1977</json:string><json:string>Folkenflik 1996</json:string><json:string>Shaw 1998a</json:string><json:string>Melvin and Polacheck (2001)</json:string><json:string>Shimm and Spece (1991)</json:string><json:string>Boyd and Bero 2000</json:string><json:string>Shaw 1999</json:string><json:string>Gibson and Pope 1993</json:string><json:string>Slater and Hall 1995</json:string><json:string>Briloff 1994</json:string><json:string>Thompson et al. 1997</json:string><json:string>Groudine and Lumb 1997</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-SCDFMG6P-Z</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - social science</json:string><json:string>2 - law</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - economic & social sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - social sciences</json:string><json:string>3 - criminology</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>3 - Law</json:string><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>3 - General Social Sciences</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>1 - sciences humaines et sociales</json:string><json:string>2 - histoire des sciences et des techniques</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>2003</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2003</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1747-4469.2003.tb00993.x</json:string></doi><id>ADFC0509F72E9078E37412669E6D11A92FCC8973</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/ADFC0509F72E9078E37412669E6D11A92FCC8973/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/ADFC0509F72E9078E37412669E6D11A92FCC8973/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/ADFC0509F72E9078E37412669E6D11A92FCC8973/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">Bushwhacking the Ethical High Road: Conflict of Interest in the Practice of Law and Real Life</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2003-01"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">Bushwhacking the Ethical High Road: Conflict of Interest in the Practice of Law and Real Life</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Susan P.</forename><surname>Shapiro</surname></persName><affiliation>Senior research fellow, American Bar Foundation, Chicago. This research was supported by the American Bar Foundation and National Science Foundation grant SES‐9223615. Special thanks to Benjamin Casper, LKesha Threats, Bryant Garth, Mary Rose, Carole Silver, Ann Southworth, Jack Heinz, M. Peter Moser, and to the lawyers who generously shared their time and experience with thoughtful reflection, colorful detail, and unusual candor. Some material presented in this article is drawn from my book Tangled Loyalties: Conflict of Interest in Legal Practice, published by the University of Michigan Press (Shapiro 2002).<address><country key="US"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">ADFC0509F72E9078E37412669E6D11A92FCC8973</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-SCDFMG6P-Z</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1747-4469.2003.tb00993.x</idno><idno type="unit">LSI87</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:LSI.LSI87.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Law & Social Inquiry</title><title level="j" type="alt">LAW SOCIAL INQUIRY</title><idno type="pISSN">0897-6546</idno><idno type="eISSN">1747-4469</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1747-4469</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/lsi.2003.28.issue-1</idno><idno type="product">LSI</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">28</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="87">87</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="268">268</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">182</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2003-01"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p>A long‐standing scholarly tradition regards professions, in general, and ethics rules, in particular, as “projects” of market control. It is no surprise, critics charge, that in the latest assault on the monopoly of the American legal profession–waged by multidisciplinary professional service firms–lawyers are hiding behind their ethics rules to protect their turf.</p><p>In this article, I report on an extensive empirical study of conflict of interest in private legal practice and look comparatively at other fiduciaries, among them, accountants, psychotherapists, physicians, journalists, and academics. I investigate the role of ethics rules that seek to insure fiduciary loyalty in structuring the delivery of services. How does social and institutional change, roiling the fiduciary world, threaten disinterestedness and loyalty and how, if at all, do fiduciaries respond? How is the regulation of conflict of interest accomplished? Where are the conflicts rules most likely to be honored or ignored? What incentive structures encourage compliance? What are the costs and unexpected consequences of compliance? What is foregone? And is it all worth it?</p><p>In what might come as a surprise to many, I find that the legal profession takes conflict of interest more seriously than many of the rest of us. As the title implies, legal practitioners largely travel alone, bushwhacking through the underbrush snarling the ethical high road. As critical scholarship predicted, lawyers do enjoy a monopoly at the end of the road. But this monopoly is achieved, not by restraint of trade or some other artifice or stratagem of market control, but by lack of competition. It seems that no one else is trudging alongside the lawyers. Lawyers are not necessarily more ethical than the others; they just behave more ethically–at least with respect to conflict of interest. The question is why. And what difference does it make?</p></abstract><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/ADFC0509F72E9078E37412669E6D11A92FCC8973/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1747-4469</doi><issn type="print">0897-6546</issn><issn type="electronic">1747-4469</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="LSI"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="LAW SOCIAL INQUIRY">Law & Social Inquiry</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="01001"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/lsi.2003.28.issue-1</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="28">28</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="1">1</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2003-01">January 2003</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="0008700" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1747-4469.2003.tb00993.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="LSI87"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="182"></count></countGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2006-07-28"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2006-07-28"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.5 mode:FullText source:HeaderRef result:HeaderRef" date="2010-04-07"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-02-01"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-31"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="87">87</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="268">268</numbering></numberingGroup><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:LSI.LSI87.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="referenceTotal" number="338"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="1"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Bushwhacking the Ethical High Road: Conflict of Interest in the Practice of Law and Real Life</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Susan P.</givenNames><familyName>Shapiro</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="US"><unparsedAffiliation>
Senior research fellow, American Bar Foundation, Chicago. This research was supported by the American Bar Foundation and National Science Foundation grant SES‐9223615. Special thanks to Benjamin Casper, LKesha Threats, Bryant Garth, Mary Rose, Carole Silver, Ann Southworth, Jack Heinz, M. Peter Moser, and to the lawyers who generously shared their time and experience with thoughtful reflection, colorful detail, and unusual candor. Some material presented in this article is drawn from my book <i>Tangled Loyalties: Conflict of Interest in Legal Practice</i>, published by the University of Michigan Press (Shapiro 2002).</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>A long‐standing scholarly tradition regards professions, in general, and ethics rules, in particular, as “projects” of market control. It is no surprise, critics charge, that in the latest assault on the monopoly of the American legal profession–waged by multidisciplinary professional service firms–lawyers are hiding behind their ethics rules to protect their turf.</p><p>In this article, I report on an extensive empirical study of conflict of interest in private legal practice and look comparatively at other fiduciaries, among them, accountants, psychotherapists, physicians, journalists, and academics. I investigate the role of ethics rules that seek to insure fiduciary loyalty in structuring the delivery of services. How does social and institutional change, roiling the fiduciary world, threaten disinterestedness and loyalty and how, if at all, do fiduciaries respond? How is the regulation of conflict of interest accomplished? Where are the conflicts rules most likely to be honored or ignored? What incentive structures encourage compliance? What are the costs and unexpected consequences of compliance? What is foregone? And is it all worth it?</p><p>In what might come as a surprise to many, I find that the legal profession takes conflict of interest more seriously than many of the rest of us. As the title implies, legal practitioners largely travel alone, bushwhacking through the underbrush snarling the ethical high road. As critical scholarship predicted, lawyers do enjoy a monopoly at the end of the road. But this monopoly is achieved, not by restraint of trade or some other artifice or stratagem of market control, but by lack of competition. It seems that no one else is trudging alongside the lawyers. Lawyers are not necessarily more ethical than the others; they just behave more ethically–at least with respect to conflict of interest. The question is why. And what difference does it make?</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Bushwhacking the Ethical High Road: Conflict of Interest in the Practice of Law and Real Life</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Bushwhacking the Ethical High Road: Conflict of Interest in the Practice of Law and Real Life</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Susan P.</namePart><namePart type="family">Shapiro</namePart><affiliation>Senior research fellow, American Bar Foundation, Chicago. This research was supported by the American Bar Foundation and National Science Foundation grant SES‐9223615. Special thanks to Benjamin Casper, LKesha Threats, Bryant Garth, Mary Rose, Carole Silver, Ann Southworth, Jack Heinz, M. Peter Moser, and to the lawyers who generously shared their time and experience with thoughtful reflection, colorful detail, and unusual candor. Some material presented in this article is drawn from my book Tangled Loyalties: Conflict of Interest in Legal Practice, published by the University of Michigan Press (Shapiro 2002).</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2003-01</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2003</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="references">338</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">1</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">A long‐standing scholarly tradition regards professions, in general, and ethics rules, in particular, as “projects” of market control. It is no surprise, critics charge, that in the latest assault on the monopoly of the American legal profession–waged by multidisciplinary professional service firms–lawyers are hiding behind their ethics rules to protect their turf. In this article, I report on an extensive empirical study of conflict of interest in private legal practice and look comparatively at other fiduciaries, among them, accountants, psychotherapists, physicians, journalists, and academics. I investigate the role of ethics rules that seek to insure fiduciary loyalty in structuring the delivery of services. How does social and institutional change, roiling the fiduciary world, threaten disinterestedness and loyalty and how, if at all, do fiduciaries respond? How is the regulation of conflict of interest accomplished? Where are the conflicts rules most likely to be honored or ignored? What incentive structures encourage compliance? What are the costs and unexpected consequences of compliance? What is foregone? And is it all worth it? In what might come as a surprise to many, I find that the legal profession takes conflict of interest more seriously than many of the rest of us. As the title implies, legal practitioners largely travel alone, bushwhacking through the underbrush snarling the ethical high road. As critical scholarship predicted, lawyers do enjoy a monopoly at the end of the road. But this monopoly is achieved, not by restraint of trade or some other artifice or stratagem of market control, but by lack of competition. It seems that no one else is trudging alongside the lawyers. Lawyers are not necessarily more ethical than the others; they just behave more ethically–at least with respect to conflict of interest. The question is why. And what difference does it make?</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Law & Social Inquiry</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0897-6546</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1747-4469</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1747-4469</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">LSI</identifier><part><date>2003</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>28</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>87</start><end>268</end><total>182</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">ADFC0509F72E9078E37412669E6D11A92FCC8973</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-SCDFMG6P-Z</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1747-4469.2003.tb00993.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">LSI87</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/ADFC0509F72E9078E37412669E6D11A92FCC8973/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 005677 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 005677 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:ADFC0509F72E9078E37412669E6D11A92FCC8973
|texte= Bushwhacking the Ethical High Road: Conflict of Interest in the Practice of Law and Real Life
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |