Game On: The First Presidential Debate

[Professor S]

You might be thinking too much about this and not seeing the forest, just the treees. A jury doesn't have to understand the nature of a case. If an ethical board finds against the actions of a professional, that can be used as evidence in the case and replace the need for true understanding. A jury will see that and it will become evidence for the case, simplifying the process greatly.

In the end, it is the threat of action and increase in potential menetary accountability that will pull everyone in line at the top, plus the threat of losing your license to practice will hold everyone in the middle.

Working in real estate, I've seen this up close and personal, it works for licensed Realtors (not Mortgage professionals, obviously). I would use the National Association of Realtors Code of Ethics as the framework for a financial code of ethics.

http://www.realtor.org/MemPolWeb.nsf/pages/COde

You could roll this into MBA programs, for instance, that way it reached those in positions who would require the license but not inhibit the multitide of lower level employees who are not in decision making positions.

In the end, could this have a negative impact on the industry? Maybe for a short while, but would be as negative as not addressing the myria ethical problems with finances? Well, I think the answer to that is in front of us now.

[Xantar]

Originally Posted by Professor S

You might be thinking too much about this and not seeing the forest, just the treees. A jury doesn't have to understand the nature of a case. If an ethical board finds against the actions of a professional, that can be used as evidence in the case and replace the need for true understanding. A jury will see that and it will become evidence for the case, simplifying the process greatly.

But see, I'm not convinced that a jury decides these cases based on the evidence. From what I've seen, it's more of a gut reaction. If the defendant "looks like a nice man," they will give him a little more benefit of the doubt despite what the objective evidence says.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the ethics board is a bad idea. And I certainly agree that it could be a useful piece of evidence. I'm just cautioning you that I don't think it will be a cure to the financial system if the only thing the board can do is provide a piece of evidence at trial. Juries are simply not reliable, consistent enforcers of the rules. As you know, that's part of the reason why medical malpractice in this country is such a mess. This is why I'm trying to think of ways for the ethics board to influence the profession besides just giving a report at trial.

[Professor S]

You make a good point with malpractice in medical law, but I think that could be avoided by having the civil penalties for financial judgements relegated to dollar for dollar. Meaning that the cap of the judgement could not go past the amount of money the accused misappropriated. If you eliminate financial "pain and suffering" from the equation and "statement verdics", I think it becomes more manageable.

Wow.. we're realy kind of working this out, aren't we? I'm impressed and it takes a lot for me to impress myself.