I had to laugh at that discussion.  "Ethics" have no place in the legal profession, IMO.  To a lawyer, "Ethics" only have to do two things - will this act get me in trouble or will this act prevent me from making money? That's the extent of "Ethics".  Hardly what one normally thinks of in terms of ethics, e.g., do the RIGHT thing.

But consider the fact that lawyers are engaged to defend/prosecute where, in virtually every case, someone (the person/entity you represent or the opposition) has done something perceived to be wrong.  Would an ethical person (actually, professional) knowingly act on the behalf of a person/entity he/she KNOWS is guilty of wrongdoing?  Or even suspects of wrongdoing?

I've had a lot of friends and co-workers who had obtained law degrees. One imparted a story from his law school (an Ivey League college) days about how it was proposed that a course in Ethics be included in the mandatory law school courses.  The law students revolted, arguing that ethics had no place in the school of law or the legal profession.  After much debate, the students won.

As for PA's "excuse" for not being a PTSC investor, "Professional Ethics" holds no water.  Note that in clarifying his concerns, every item had to do with either: will this act get me in trouble or will this act prevent me from making money?

Better answers: I have no money to invest, I do not invest in penney stocks, I'm not convinced the company will succeed.  Pick one, the best being the TRUTHFUL one. But don't gives us this ethics business, especially when it was obvious to you that it would prompt more unfavorable discussion.  And you are a lawyer? Choose you're arguments more carefully!

Now that I've irked the PA, which really wasn't my intent, I must say that I'm happy to have PA here and to receive his insights.  Not a bad trade for PA (or us), PA gives his insights, we give ours and the information resources we bring.

I just have a major pet peeve with Ethics application to the legal profession. Does not apply.

SGE