Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2018
The American Bar Association is considering a revision of its Code of Professional Responsibility. One revision deals specifically with lawyers whose clients are organizations; it attempts to delineate the ethical responsibilities of such lawyers when they discover an employee or a member of one of their clients is engaged in wrongdoing on the organization's behalf. Because the proposal suggests that corporate counsel may be justified in public disclosure of the wrongdoing when the organization itself fails to rectify the problem, it has sparked much controversy in the profession and much speculation as to whether and when corporate counsel will “blow the whistle.” The article offers a sociological perspective on the act of a corporate counsel's public disclosure of organizational wrongdoing. The act of disclosure is treated as a social behavior, the likelihood of which is increased or decreased by a number of factors including the attorney's awareness of the wrongdoing, the attorney's orientations to the larger profession, the structure of the professional practice setting within which the counsel is located, and the supports for disclosure offered by the legal profession through its formal organizations. These factors are described and then combined into a general predictive model of disclosure by corporate counsel. A concluding discussion of the general ramifications of the proposed revisions focuses on the social implications of the attorney-client privilege, in which the client is as unique an actor as is the large organization.
1 Talcott Parsons, Law as an Intellectual Stepchild, in Harry M. Johnsoned., Social System and Legal Process: Theory, Comparative Perspectives and Special Studies (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1978).Google Scholar
2 Henry Sumner Maine, Ancient Law: Its Connection with the Early History of Society and Its Relation to Modern Ideas (Boston: Beacon Press, 1963, paperback ed.); Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society (New York: Free Press, 1933).Google Scholar
3 Donald Black, The Behavior of Law (New York: Academic Press, 1976); Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Law in Modern Society: Toward a Criticism of Social Theory (New York: Macmillan, Free Press, 1976).Google Scholar
4 See, e.g., SEC v. National Student Marketing Corp., 457 F. Supp. 682 (D.D.C. 1978), cross-appeals pending, Nos. 79–1051-1053 (D.C. Cir.); SEC v. Haswel, No. 78–1048 (10th Cir.); In re William R. Carter and Charles J. Johnson, Jr., SEC Administrative Proceeding File No. 3–5464, Release No. 17597 (Feb. 28, 1981); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 15982 (July 2, 1979).Google Scholar
5 American Bar Association, Commission on Evaluation of Professional Standards, Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Proposed Final Draft, Chicago: American Bar Association, May 30, 1981) (hereinafter cited as Model Rules).Google Scholar
6 American Bar Association, Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Model Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of Judicial Conduct (Chicago: American Bar Association, 1979).Google Scholar
7 Schwartz, Murray L., The Death and Regeneration of Ethics, 1980 A.B.F. Res. J. 953.Google Scholar
8 See appendix for the entire Rule with Comment.Google Scholar
9 Wolfram, Charles W., Client Perjury: The Kutak Commission and the Association of Trial Lawyers on Lawyers, Lying Clients, and the Adversary System, 1980 A.B.F. Res. J. 964.Google Scholar
10 Harold M. Williams, The Role of the Inside Counsel in Corporate Accountability (Paper presented to the Corporate Counsel Institute, Chicago, Ill., Oct. 4, 1979); Ruth Marcus, SEC: Ethics Dilemma a Bar Issue, Nat'l L.J., May 12, 1980, at 1.Google Scholar
11 Barber, Bernard, Control and Responsibility in the Powerful Professions, 93 Pol. Sci. Q. 599 (1978); Schwartz, supra note 7.Google Scholar
12 Quintin Johnstone & Dan Hopson, Jr., Lawyers and Their Work: An Analysis of the Legal Profession in the United States and England (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1967); John D. Donnell, The Corporate Counsel: A Role Study (Bloomington: Bureau of Business Research/Graduate School of Business/Indiana University, 1970); Slovak, Jeffrey S., Working for Corporate Actors: Social Change and Elite Attorneys in Chicago, 1979 A.B.F. Res. J. 465; id., Giving and Getting Respect: Prestige and Stratification in a Legal Elite, 1980 A.B.F. Res. J. 31.Google Scholar
13 Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (New York: Oxford University Press, 1947).Google Scholar
14 Ernest Greenwood, Attributes of a Profession, 2 Soc. Work 45 (July 1957); Howard M. Vollmer & Donald L. Millseds., Professionalization (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966); Wilbert Ellis Moore & Gerald W. Rosenblum, The Professions: Roles and Rules (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1970).Google Scholar
15 Irwin Ross, How Lawless Are Big Companies? Fortune, Dec. 1, 1980, at 56.Google Scholar
16 Id. The data compiled by Ross yield an average of 1.6 instances of wrongdoing per corporate offender over the period studied.Google Scholar
17 See, for two classic examples, LaPiere, Richard T., Attitudes vs. Actions, 13 Soc. Forces 230 (1934) and Brayfield, Arthur H. & Crockett, Walter H., Employee Attitudes and Employee Performance, 52 Psych. Bull. 396 (1955).Google Scholar
18 Gouldner, Alvin W., Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles (pts. 1–2), Admin. Sci. Q. 281, 444 (195758); Hill, Winston W. & French, Wendell L., Perceptions of the Power of Department Chairmen by Professors, 11 Admin. Sci. Q. 548 (1967); Lewis, Lionel S., On Prestige and Loyalty of University Faculty, 11 Admin. Sci. Q. 629 (1967).Google Scholar
19 Thornton, Russell, Organizational Involvement and Commitment to Organization and Profession, 15 Admin. Sci. Q. 417 (1970).Google Scholar
20 Lee, Sang M., An Empirical Analysis of Organizational Identification, 14 Acad. Management J. 213 (1971).Google Scholar
21 McKelvey, William W., Expectational Noncomplementarity and Style of Interaction Between Professional and Organization, 14 Admin. Sci. Q. 21 (1969).Google Scholar
22 George C. Homans, The Human Group (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1950).Google Scholar
23 Peter Michael Blau & W. Richard Scott, Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1962).Google Scholar
24 William A. Kornhauser, Scientists in Industry: Conflict and Accommodation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962); Barney G. Glaser, Organizational Scientists: Their Professional Careers (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1964); Donald C. Pelz & Frank M. Andrews, Scientists in Organizations: Productive Climates for Research and Development (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966); Sheldon, Mary E., Investments and Involvements as Mechanisms Producing Commitment to the Organization, 16 Admin. Sci. Q. 143 (1971);Miller, George A. & Wager, L. Wesley, Adult Socialization, Organizational Structure, and Role Orientations, 16 Admin. Sci. Q. 151 (1971).Google Scholar
25 Maanen, John Van, Police Socialization: A Longitudinal Examination of Job Attitudes in an Urban Police Department, 20 Admin. Sci. Q. 207 (1975);Regoli, Robert M. & Poole, Eric D., Changes in the Professional Commitments of Police Recruits: An Exploratory Case Study, 7 J. Crim. Just. 243 (1979).Google Scholar
26 Thornton, supra note 19.Google Scholar
27 Glaser, supra note 24.Google Scholar
28 Until roughly the turn of the century, apprenticeship to an admitted lawyer was an accepted alternative to formal legal education.Google Scholar
29 Howard S. Becker & Blanche Geer, The Fate of Idealism in Medical School, 23 Am. Soc. Rev. 50 (1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30 Hill & French, supra note 18.Google Scholar
31 Engel, Gloria V., Professional Autonomy and Bureaucratic Organization, 15 Admin. Sci. Q. 12 (1970).Google Scholar
32 Miller & Wager, supra note 24.Google Scholar
33 Sheldon, supra note 24.Google Scholar
34 Id. and Miller & Wager, supra note 24.Google Scholar
35 Jerome E. Carlin, Lawyers' Ethics: A Survey of the New York City Bar (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1966).Google Scholar
36 Id. at 248–49.Google Scholar
37 Id., ch. 10, esp. at 171.Google Scholar
38 Survey of the Nation's Largest Corporate Law Departments, Nat'l L.J., Apr. 4, 1980, at 26–29; Apr. 11, 1980, at 26–29. Jeffrey S. Slovak, Lawyers in American Industry: Structural Determinants of Professional Expansion (to be presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Toronto, Aug. 1981).Google Scholar
39 Erwin O. Smigel, The Wall Street Lawyer: Professional Organization Man? (New York: Macmillan Co., Free Press of Glencoe, 1964); Delany, William & Finegold, Alan H., Wall Street Lawyer in the Provinces, 15 Admin. Sci. Q. 191 (1970).Google Scholar
40 McConnell, Jon P. & Lillis, Charles M., A Comment on the Role, Structure, and Function of Corporate Legal Departments, 14 Am. Bus. L.J. 227 (1976); Slovak, Working for Corporate Actors, supra note 12.Google Scholar
41 Rushing, William A., The Effects of Industry Size and Division of Labor on Administration, 12 Admin. Sci. Q. 273 (1967); Pondy, Louis R., Effects of Size, Complexity, and Ownership on Administrative Intensity, 14 Admin. Sci. Q. 47 (1969); Peter Michael Blau & Richard A. Schoenherr, The Structure of Organizations (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1971); Beyer, Janice M. & Trice, Harrison M., A Reexamination of the Relations Between Size and Various Components of Organizational Complexity, 24 Admin. Sci. Q. 48 (1979); Miller, George A. & Conaty, Joseph, Differentiation in Organizations: Replication and Cumulation, 59 Soc. Forces 265 (1980).Google Scholar
42 Slovak, Working for Corporate Actors, supra note 12.Google Scholar
43 Rast, Edmund L., What the Chief Executive Looks for in His Corporate Law Department, 33 Bus. Law. 811 (1978).Google Scholar
44 Carlin, supra note 35.Google Scholar
45 Slovak, Working for Corporate Actors, supra note 12.Google Scholar
46 Alvin W. Gouldner, Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy (New York: Free Press, 1954).Google Scholar
47 Grusky, Oscar, Succession with an Ally, 14 Admin. Sci. Q. 155 (1969).Google Scholar
48 Stephen Solomon, The Corporate Lawyer's Dilemma, Fortune, Nov. 5, 1979, at 138.Google Scholar
49 Ralph Nader, Peter J. Petkas, & Kate Blackwelleds., Whistle Blowing: The Report of the Conference on Professional Responsibility (New York: Grossman Publishers, 1972).Google Scholar
50 Alan F. Westined., Whistle-Blowing! Loyalty and Dissent in the Corporation (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1981).Google Scholar
51 Smigel, supra note 39; Slovak, Working for Corporate Actors, supra note 12.Google Scholar
52 Morris Janowitz, Institution Building in Urban Education (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1969).Google Scholar
53 N. Bruce Hannay & Robert E. McGinn, The Anatomy of Modern Technology: Prolegomenon to an Improved Public Policy for the Social Management of Technology, 109 Daedalus 25 (Winter 1980).Google Scholar
54 Blomquist, William K., Corporate Disclosures of Relationships with Counsel: A Comment on Recent sec Proposals, 61 Chi. B. Rec. 230, 233 (1980).Google Scholar
55 Monroe H. Freedman, Judge Frankel's Search for Truth, in Allan Gersoned., Lawyers' Ethics: Contemporary Dilemmas 124, 127, & 136 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Transaction Books, 1980).Google Scholar
56 Id. at 126–27.Google Scholar
57 Id. and Blumberg, Abraham S., The Practice of Law as Confidence Game: Organizational Cooptation of a Profession, 1 Law & Soc'y Rev. 15 (1967).Google Scholar
58 Coleman, James S., Loss of Power, 38 Am. Soc. Rev. 1 (1973); id., Power and the Structure of Society (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1974).Google Scholar
59 Laumann, Edward O. & Heinz, John P., Specialization and Prestige in the Legal Profession: The Structure of Deference, 1977 A.B.F. Res. J. 155.Google Scholar
60 Adolph A. Berle, Jr., & Gardiner C. Means, The Modern Corporation and Private Property (New York: Macmillan Co., 1932); Carney, William J., Fundamental Corporate Changes, Minority Shareholders and Business Purposes, 1980 A.B.F. Res. J 69.Google Scholar
61 Coleman, Power and the Structure of Society, supra note 58, at 64–65.Google Scholar
62 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., Ethics in the Practice of Law 143–44, 151 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1978).Google Scholar
