It looks as though the US’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and UK’s Financial Services Authority (FSA) are hunting down those they believe to be the architects of the financial crisis. This week, the SEC filed a fraud suit against Goldman Sachs, the recession-defying Wall Street investment bank.The SEC alleges that Goldman acted illegally, in allowing Paulson & Co, a hedge fund, to select certain sub-prime-mortgage backed securities as part of a product Goldman sold to investors, when Goldman knew that Paulson & Co had taken a ‘short’ position against these securities. The SEC also alleges that Goldman did not disclose to investors that Paulson & Co had selected the securities when marketing the product, the ‘Abacus CDO’, to investors. The FSA commenced its own investigation as soon as the SEC filed its suit. Goldman said it is ‘disappointed that the SEC would bring this action related to a single transaction in the face of an extensive record which establishes that the accusations are unfounded in law and fact’.

In March, we had the report by Anton Valukas, appointed by the US Bankruptcy Court to pick over the bones of failed investment bank Lehman Brothers. Valukas was highly critical of the $50bn (£32bn) worth of complex ‘Repo 105’ instruments used by Lehman to allegedly mask its debts before its collapse. Valukas said that these deals would not have been possible under US law, so Lehman went to London instead and to magic circle firm Linklaters, which told Lehman that the deals were legal in England. Yesterday, the SEC disclosed that it had begun a formal inquiry into Lehman’s accounting practices, including the Repo 105 deals. Linklaters has stressed that Valukas did not criticise Linklaters’ opinions or suggest that they were wrong or improper.

Linklaters found itself under scrutiny in the press for giving Lehman this opinion –despite the fact that Valukas cast no doubt on the validity of Linklaters’ advice. This is a worrying precedent for the top firms.

As much as lawyers want to be seen as honest professionals, they will nevertheless be roped in with the ‘greedy bankers’ in cases like these. In helping to create high stakes financial instruments, people know that skilled lawyers get paid very well for giving their advice. But while giving legal advice on a business decision and making a business decision are very different things, the public perception unfortunately remains that they are one and the same.

It is not yet clear whether any law firms provided advice to Goldman on the Abacus CDO, and a spokeswoman for the FSA declined to comment on the question. But if they did, they can expect the same treatment dished out to Linklaters. And if the SEC’s investigations into Lehman and Goldman are a sign of its intent to pursue the sub-prime securities architects, then top corporate law firms either side of the Atlantic can be excused for feeling distinctly uncomfortable.