” Dear Ellie: The firm seems a little shady to me, but I need the experience. Should I take the offer?”
Over at Above the Law, Ellie Mystal posts a request for advice from a desperate job-seeking lawyer, and polls readers for their response. The lawyer has an offer from a local attorney she says has a reputation for being unethical and untrustworthy. He has filed for bankruptcy once; he is being investigated by the local bar and the government, and former employees say he’s atrocious to work for. The inexperienced lawyer asks,
“Is this really bad for an entry-level lawyer to work for an (arguably) bad lawyer? Is it an absolute NO? Which one is more important: get some experience or working at a right/good firm? To put it another way, which one is worse: having no experience or working at a bad firm? I keep searching job postings and there is no opening for entry-level. Everyone looks for experienced lawyers. So I get the impression that no experience is the worst.
“I don’t know what to do with this offer. Feels not right to accept this offer but cannot just forgo. So give me some advice — should I accept his offer?”
Well, let me th—NOOOOOOOO!!!! Absolutely NOT! Never in a million years! NEVER!
And yet, almost 20% of Above the Law’s mostly lawyer readers voted for the choice reading, “Yes. Beggars can’t be choosers.”
That is disturbing.
I also find it troubling that Mystal headlines this story “And This Is How We Turn Good People Into Unethical Lawyers,” though the end result is correctly predicted: a lawyer who goes to work for such a lawyer will either be corrupted by the culture he creates, or be one of that culture’s victims. I would tend toward the first of these alternatives, because any lawyer who would knowingly choose to work for an unethical law firm has a malfunctioning ethics alarm of her own; Mystal’s headline to the contrary, anyone who takes such a job probably wasn’t very ethical–“good”— to begin with. Unethical attorneys take unethical cases serving unethical clients. They favor unethical subordinates, to whom they give unethical assignments, and expect unethical means to be used to achieve unethical ends. From the practical standpoint, this potential employer apparently isn’t even very effective at being unethical, since his business has failed and both the bar and the government are hot on his trail.
The young lawyer who asks this question is not merely inexperienced and ethically inept, but apparently not very bright either. Experience with a dubious employer is worse than no experience at all, even if she escapes without being involved directly in shady activity that risks her own law license. It is all about trust, trust, trust. We cannot trust the values of a lawyer who works well with an unscrupulous supervisor, or the judgment of one who chooses to do so. The imperative of every ethical professional when he or she discovers that his or her workplace culture is unethical is to try to repair it, or flee from it. Knowingly walking into a corrupt culture means one is either corrupt already, willing to be corrupted, or too dumb for the job.
Boiled down to its essence, Mystal’s reader’s question isn’t just “Do the ends justify the means?” but “Do the ends justify the means when the ends are risky and minimal at best and crippling and horrible at worst?”
That better be an easy question for any lawyer.
Indeed, it should be an easy question for anyone.
_______________________________
Facts: Above the Law
Graphic: fanpop
Ethics Alarms 
“The Firm” illustrated this phenomena. From my lay perspective, however, it seems that the very tools used in the legal trade are the very same tools that can confuse, confound and obfuscate truth, rather than shine brighter light. In this regard then, the task becomes more difficult when the job of the lawyer is reduced to finding the positive spin on an otherwise negative circumstance.
Legal reasoning doesn’t obfuscate truth; unethical lawyers obfuscate truth.
Is it not the ethical obligation of a defence lawyer to obfuscate truth if that’s in his client’s best interests?
To confuse, confound and obfuscate – as long as there is no direct, knowing falsehood? To only tell as much of the truth as favours the client, and divert attention from the truth that does not?
By its very nature, “trial by combat” requires this of the defence, and the opposite for the prosecution.
Where it becomes unethical is if the prosecution knowingly conceals exculpatory evidence, or either side manufactures it. As happens a lot.
No,not that it isn’t commonly done. Defense shows legitimate weaknesses in the prosecution’s case. Confusing the jury is unethical. Making the legitimate case that guilt is more complicated issue than the state claims is not obfuscation.
My job as a defense attorney is very simple: Make sure that, before my client is convicted, the prosecutor does their job, which is to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. As far as the truth is concerned, I’ve been practicing for more than forty years, and I still never know, for sure, what the truth is. I’ve heard prosecution witnesses and defense witnesses, and I’m fairly certain that the truth is often somewhere in between. The only thing about which I am generally absolutely certain is that I wasn’t there when whatever happened happened.
Perfectly stated. Exactly right.
What price when one auctions their own soul? I’ve seen it in the corporate environment and it is wretched. To follow ethics and be honest is very difficult when everyone expects to be told only the good and refuse to hear the failings. Do we want to be popular and lie or honest and try your best to help others even when the news isn’t good. Is it possible?…. yes…..difficult? yes, but not impossible.
When we start to believe that our course and habits can be changed when we get further enveloped, we are sure to try to convince ourselves that we did what we could when we could. And what of those we wronged while waiting to be hones and forthright?
I’d rather fail trying to follow the right path, fall but then pick myself up…rather than sail through the easy way and not be able to look myself squarely in the eye.
@Michele~ Perfect. Again, an opportune time to revisit one of Schopenhauer’s best quotes: “Truth is no harlot who throws her arms around the neck of him who does not desire her. To the contrary, she is so coy a beauty that the man who sacrifices everything to her is still not assured of her favors.”