Crisis of confidence

Corporate lawyers are in the spotlight as never before.

The US Sarbanes-Oxley Act has put the onus on lawyers, in-house and in private practice, to consider wider interests than those of immedi-ate clients, while Clifford Chance hit the Financial Times' front page over allegations that pressure on US associates encourages them to pad bills.

Some of Clifford Chance's travails may be caused by its problems in integrating its US arm, but the firm has struggled to put its side across.

The coverage has been gleeful, but those in other City firms who are enjoying the spectacle should expect questions from their own clients.

Sarbanes-Oxley opens a far deeper issue that goes to the heart of the profession's values.

Should lawyers owe anyone other than their client a duty? Should they be gatekeepers for the public? As one US lawyer asked delegates at the International Bar Association conference last week, why is client confidentiality a core value?

Lawyers are not there to protect their clients if they witness wrongdoings.

But without confidentiality, can clients trust their lawyers?

The fact is that money laundering legislation has already eaten into confidentiality.

The idea of allowing firms to notify the world that they have stopped acting for a client, without actually giving the reasons (which, after all, may be innocent), is a potentially elegant solution that deserves consideration.