The Lawyer's Duty of Candor and the Bar's Temptations of Evasion and Apology

Abstract

The charges brought by the Office of Thrift Supervision against the law firm of Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays, and Handler, in 1992 generated the most prominent legal ethics controversy of the decade. Despite massive attention to the case, the substance of the OTS charges has received little analysis and has been often mischaracterized. This article analyzes the charges and the bar's response to them. It concludes that the charges were plausible prima facie. It argues, further, that the response by bar organizations and leaders has been pervasively disingenuous and irresponsible. It also identifies and analyzes some broad ethical issues raised by the case about the participation of lawyers in financial scandals. The article concludes with an appendix reporting and assessing Kaye Scholer's response to the charges.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.