Ethics III

[Bees Knees]

Seems this would be not only an "ethics" issue according to Circ 230, but also a moral issue to assist to protect those that can not protect themselves from predatory scams!

Sandy

Without giving the answer away, Sandy has hit the nail on the head, when she acknowledges that "ethics" and "moral" are not the same.

Ethics does not equal the moral thing to do.

Ethics does not equal the right thing to do.

Ethics, pure and simple, in our profession, is about obeying rules of conduct. Those rules of conduct are dictated by the IRS. Our professional organizations have adopted similar standards.

I’ll give you another hint….The IRS did not use the Bible when coming up with rules of conduct in Circular 230.

[Black Bart]

It depends on which definition you go by.

Ethics does not equal the moral thing to do.

Ethics does not equal the right thing to do.

.

Here's two for "ethics" from the American Heritage Dictionary.

(1) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person.

(2) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession.

[Bees Knees]

(1) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person.

(2) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession.

A good example between ethics in the moral sense, and ethics in the professional sense, is the ethics of criminal defense attorneys. The defense attorney has client attorney privilege. That privilege may allow the attorney to learn the truth – that the client is guilty of murder. Yet the attorney must put forth the best possible defense with the goal of getting a not guilty verdict.

From a professional perspective, it would be un-ethical for the attorney to not try very hard to win. The attorney could actually be disbarred if he or she were to break attorney client privilege and give the prosecutor evidence to help convict the defendant.

Form a moral perspective, many would view it as un-ethical to help a murderer escape punishment.

Professional ethics does not necessarily equate with ethics in a moral sense. Often times, they can contradict.

[jainen]

I strongly disagree

>>Professional ethics does not necessarily equate with ethics in a moral sense. Often times, they can contradict.<<

I strongly disagree with this statement. Your client trusts you with confidential information because you hold yourself out as bound by professional ethics. If you do not follow through on your ethics, you have lied and misused the information--immoral acts by anybody's standards.

You are not a doctor or a social worker, and have no business making a determination of someone's "competency." Ethically and morally you are required to refer your suspicions to appropriate help. Unless your client has specifically told you otherwise, that would NEVER be the client's heir or one family member over another. Talk about conflict of interest!

[Bees Knees]

>>Professional ethics does not necessarily equate with ethics in a moral sense. Often times, they can contradict.<<

I strongly disagree with this statement. Your client trusts you with confidential information because you hold yourself out as bound by professional ethics. If you do not follow through on your ethics, you have lied and misused the information--immoral acts by anybody's standards.

Oh you really want to get into it with me on this?

Leviticus 5:1, “‘Now in case a soul sins in that he has heard public cursing and he is a witness or he has seen it or has come to know of it, if he does not report it, then he must answer for his error.”

Proverbs 29:24, “He that is partner with a thief is hating his own soul. An oath involving a curse he may hear, but he reports nothing.”

The Bible is very clear, that helping someone conceal a sin is a sin in itself. You may not agree with that. What is morally wrong for one person is often not viewed as morally wrong by another person. Religious morality in this day and age is very controversial.

Disagree all you want, but the fact of the matter, professional ethics and moral ethics are contradictory in the minds of many. Your opinion of what is moral is not my opinion of what is moral.

[jainen]

what I wanted to do

>>helping someone conceal a sin is a sin in itself<<

Whoa! That's a completely different subject. The other poll (Ethics II) was about whether you should help someone cheat on their taxes or their marriage or something.

This one (Ethics III) is about whether you should, on your own initiative, without client permission or instructions, against your own promises about how you will handle her confidential information, and with no medical training, you should determine that a client is not competent, that what the client wants is not in her own best interests--and then give that information not to the agencies set up to protect the public from the kind of exploitation you suspect, but to the person with the greatest adverse financial interest in the matter.

In one way it is kind of refreshing to see you quote the Old Testament in support of situational ethics, except the idea is so far over the top. It's such an outrageous and insulting suggestion for our profession. You're almost making me break my pledge to Black Bart (but according to you that would be okay as long as I decided it was what I wanted to do).

[Bees Knees]

In one way it is kind of refreshing to see you quote the Old Testament in support of situational ethics, except the idea is so far over the top. It's such an outrageous and insulting suggestion for our profession. You're almost making me break my pledge to Black Bart (but according to you that would be okay as long as I decided it was what I wanted to do).

You are missing my point. Ethics, as it relates to my religious beliefs, contradicts ethics, as it relates to my duty to my client.

If I am a defense attorney, my professional ethics requires me to help my client, even if I believe he is a murderer. If I am a [insert name of religion], I am bound by my moral ethics to turn in the dirty rotten pond scum.

You can't possible think that ethics is always universally consistent in every sense of the term.

[Bees Knees]

Without giving away the answer to Ethics III, I am trying to help people understand that their moral ethical beliefs could be contrary to their duty to their professional ethics. Some have expressed the view that there is a point where they have to over rule their professional ethical responsibility to their client. Who are you to say that would be wrong morally? Are you now the judge of all moral ethics? Yes we can argue professional ethics. Hopefully we can discuss and understand specific professional ethics that we must apply. I can assure you, however, trying to extend that argument over to the moral side with an attempt to make the two consistent will only get you into an argument. Moral ethics from a religious point of view and professional ethics are not the same.

[Joe Btfsplk]

Attorney for guilty client

There is a problem if an attorney defends a client he knows is guilty.
However there is a legal reason which would require the attorney to do his best for a guilty client: everyone is entitled to a good defense even if he is guilty. The justification is that not everyone charged is actually guilty and it needs to be established in a court in which the best defense can be overcome by the prosecution. So I would not totally condemn an attorney who defended a guilty person.
Some lawyers will not work as defense lawyers because they do NOT want to defend guilty people. In Dallas the recently defeated candidate for DA had an outstanding record as an Assistant DA. He was one of the top prosecutors in the state, and could have cashed in by switching to the defense and I believe turned down several offers.

One of my daughters is a lawyer and would not work as a criminal defense attorney and has specialized in Real Estate law.

[jainen]

In what religion

>>Moral ethics from a religious point of view and professional ethics are not the same.<<

In what religion is it moral to solicit business by promising ethical behavior that you are not really committed to and that you will secretly violate whenever it suits your personal opinions?

There are religions that openly reject public ethics, and I respect that. For example, Catholic hospitals refuse to perform legal abortions. They say what they mean and they mean what they say. Babtists sell tickets to a pancake breakfast but they don't advertise it as a Champagne brunch.

If you continue to work in a field whose ethics you find unacceptable, then there is something profoundly hypocritical about your personal morals. There is no religion that allows you to set aside your personal morals long enough to collect your fee.

[Black Bart]

j c

>>Professional ethics does not necessarily equate with ethics in a moral sense. Often times, they can contradict.<<

I strongly disagree with this statement. Your client trusts you with confidential information because you hold yourself out as bound by professional ethics. If you do not follow through on your ethics, you have lied and misused the information--immoral acts by anybody's standards.

You are not a doctor or a social worker, and have no business making a determination of someone's "competency." Ethically and morally you are required to refer your suspicions to appropriate help. Unless your client has specifically told you otherwise, that would NEVER be the client's heir or one family member over another. Talk about conflict of interest!

I'm not following you on this, because Bees is saying the same thing you are.

He is taking the position (see the defense attorney argument above) that, in abiding by rules of professional conduct, you have to keep the information confidential regardless of your personal feelings about it. Isn't that what you're saying in this post here?

[Bees Knees]

In what religion is it moral to solicit business by promising ethical behavior that you are not really committed to and that you will secretly violate whenever it suits your personal opinions?

Good point.

However, if you do find yourself with a client that has turned senile, and you witness someone taking advantage of him, how can you turn a blind eye to what is going on, and obey this scriptural command:

1 John 3:17 But whoever has this world’s means for supporting life and beholds his brother having need and yet shuts the door of his tender compassions upon him, in what way does the love of God remain in him?

Many would view their moral responsibility to help an override to the secular rule to keep quite.

[Black Bart]

Hmmm; now I'm not following You.

Many would view their moral responsibility to help an override to the secular rule to keep quite.

Are you now saying forget the "defense attorney" stance and go with the Bible? Or was this post just for our information?

[jainen]

living in Iran

>>you have to keep the information confidential regardless of your personal feelings<<

I don't think either one of us is saying that.
**** **** ****

>>if you do find yourself with a client that has turned senile, and you witness someone taking advantage of him, how can you turn a blind eye to what is going on<<

Of course I know that both ethics and morality demand you act to protect a potential victim. You do that by calling in the client's doctor, lawyer or other professional, or by referring it to the county district attorney or social worker. Those are all disinterested parties and any of them has the training, power and authority to correctly assess what are only guesses to you, and then actually do whatever is needed.

You can NOT accomplish the same thing by bringing in the family member. That will almost always complicate matters by involving the relative's own personal goals about the estate--the best you could hope for is that the family member would call the doctor, lawyer, d.a., or social worker that you should have contacted in the first place.
**** **** ****

The defense attorney is not a very similar situation, because he or she does have the ability to correctly interpret the situation. Nevertheless, the system does not permit him or her to make the decision for everyone. We rely on the defense to do its job correctly, and the prosecution likewise, and the judge or jury to make the binding decision.

Those who think religious viewpoints should overrule civil law might be happier living in Iran.

[Rocky]

Those who think religious viewpoints should overrule civil law might be happier living in Iran.

Thank the Almighty for the separation of church and state in our land!

From the discussion on Ethics II & III, what I have gathered so far is:

There are levels of "ethics", with "professional ethics" being the least we should perform. While by our "moral ethics" we are bound, like the apostles were, when they were ordered to stop teaching in the name of Y'shua and they replied, "We ought to obey God, rather than man!" because they were obeying their commission by the Master.

There may come a point for some of us where we must subject ourselves to the penalty of the law, or at the very least professional censure, in order to uphold a higher law.

"Speak up for those who can't speak for themselves, for the rights of all who need an advocate. Speak up, judge righteously, defend the cause of the poor and the needy." Proverbs 31:8&9 CJB

In the case of the elderly gentleman, I hope I could find someone that could shield him from the charlatans, but it would not necessarily be family!