Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal
Reserve Bank, told the Harvard graduating Class of 1999, "Without mutual
trust and market participants abiding by a rule of law, no economy can prosper."
Then in 2005, he taught the graduating class of the University of Pennsylvania’s
Wharton School, "In virtually all our transactions, whether with customers
or with colleagues, with friends or with strangers, we rely on the word of
those with whom we do business. If we could not do so, goods and services could
not be exchanged efficiently."
His consensus that business cannot function
without trust, which is rooted in honesty, not only applies to economics, but
to the Rule of Law, as well. Testimony given “under oath”, is held up as the
standard upon which life-altering decisions are made. The lives and fortunes of
legal adversaries hang on the accuracy and validity of statements given by
witnesses. So important is honesty in the Courts, that the violation of this
oath is punishable by years of incarceration.
So, how do attorneys and experts navigate the
minefield of seductive falsehoods and still maintain honesty, integrity, and
loyalty to their clients? . . .
Simply be honest with the facts and always draw fact-based conclusions.
This does not imply that we must take every bit of evidence at face value nor refrain from diligently researching past decisions to find a ruling that fits our case. It means that part of truth cannot be omitted. Fabrication of facts or blatant misrepresentation of the truth, can never occur. Accusations are specific, and the defense of them should be as specific, but not censured.
Simply be honest with the facts and always draw fact-based conclusions.
This does not imply that we must take every bit of evidence at face value nor refrain from diligently researching past decisions to find a ruling that fits our case. It means that part of truth cannot be omitted. Fabrication of facts or blatant misrepresentation of the truth, can never occur. Accusations are specific, and the defense of them should be as specific, but not censured.
There will always be times, nearly all the time,
when facts contradict, don’t align, or are ambiguous. Rather than succumb to
fact-less conclusions or inflammatory accusations, we need to concentrate our
efforts to separate fact from fiction, align perspectives, and clarify
conditions. It is our job to do so, it should not be a convenience if it
happens. Anything less than this is a disservice to our clients and reflects on
our level of competence.
Integrity is not something we do, it is what we have
as a result of our actions. Without integrity we have no bearings, no character,
and we lose the ability to be trusted. Integrity precludes stable opinions
based on principles and the consistent implementation of those principles. It negates
the need to remember which lie fits into which cubby, because the answers are
always the same, even if they are adjusted to fit individual circumstances.
Loyalty to a client does not mean we have an
obligation to provide acquittal. Loyalty in representation demands that we
ensure the Rule of Law is followed, that our client has every opportunity to
correctly present their story, and that miscarriages, injustice, and abuse are neutralized.
The first question a client usually asks an
attorney is some variation of, “Can you get me off?” For some attorneys and
experts, the answer is always, “Yes,” then any means available are employed to
achieve that goal, whether it serves justice or not. This attitude thwarts the
very reason for the Rule of Law. If laws are not enforceable, they cease to exist.
We have cultures around the world where justice is doled out on the basis of
who you know, who your family is, or what your status is in society. This is
not justice, it is cronyism. Chronic abuse, theft, loss of liberty, and the destruction
of lives and property, always follow such a course.
As attorneys and experts, we have to consciously
review our past opinions to ensure they align with our present ones. Laws
change and situations are often different, but if we move our opinions, there
must always be concrete facts or evidence, that justifies such behavior.
There may be some who feel these remarks are a
threat to their livelihood and that may be true. If people are looking to escape
consequences or maliciously injure another, they may not engage an attorney or
expert who will not bend or misrepresent the truth. Each may find a measure of
success in this path, but ultimately, their actions will erode the pedestal
under Lady Justice, until she eventually topples to the earth.
Without honesty, we cannot have integrity.
Without integrity, we cannot be trusted.
If we cannot be trusted, we are of no value.
Image courtesy of:
https://www.reference.com/government-politics/lady-justice-blindfolded-55d3389af74020f6
https://www.reference.com/government-politics/lady-justice-blindfolded-55d3389af74020f6