The criminal conviction of Arthur Andersen that helped precipitate the accountancy giant's collapse in 2002 has placed lawyers 'at risk of prosecution and imprisonment for doing their jobs', a US lawyers' association claimed in an amicus brief lodged with the Supreme Court last week.

The brief was submitted in support of Andersen, which is appealing its conviction for obstructing justice by destroying Enron-related documents in a hearing scheduled for next month.


In its brief, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) said the legitimate conduct of Andersen's in-house lawyer, Nancy Temple, had been criminalised.


It claimed Ms Temple's actions in reminding employees to adhere to the company's document retention policy, and recommending changes to a draft memorandum, were 'actions that lawyers undertake every day'. The policy advised employees to delete draft documents, while leaving the final versions in Andersen's files.


The brief claims that a post-conviction press conference with jurors had revealed that they 'convicted Andersen solely based on [Ms] Temple's advice - specifically, her four paragraph e-mail proposing changes to the draft memorandum.' It continues: 'By criminalising this conduct, the [court] disregards the traditional role of lawyers, which includes a duty to protect their clients by deflecting potential government investigations.


'In the court's view, this goal itself is "improper" and represents a "corrupt purpose"... Lawyers in the post-Andersen era will now operate in fear of investigation and prosecution. Those fears inevitably will dampen the zealousness of their advocacy. That will imperil the fair administration of justice.'


The brief continues: 'If allowed to stand, the decision will also endanger the attorney-client relationship by engendering potential conflicts of interest between lawyers and clients... Lawyers will have to weigh in the balance their own potential exposure to criminal liability. Yet the fundamental tenet of the attorney-client relationship is that the lawyer's commitment to the client must be undiluted by concerns for their own interests.'


A further amicus brief in support of Andersen, issued jointly by the Washington Legal Foundation and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, said the Andersen decision would have damaging implications for the US economy.