Last year, lawyers scored a net ethical score of zero, marking a significant drop from the 2020 figure of +11. However, this year, lawyers’ net ethical score rose to six, despite ethical scores in the majority of other occupations dropping. 

Legal professionals across the country were perceived as either “somewhat ethical” or “very ethical” by 41 per cent of respondents, with 35 per cent describing lawyers as “somewhat unethical” or “very unethical”.

At the time of the release of the index, Governance Institute chief executive Megan Motto said that this year’s results were a “major concern”.

“In the first pandemic year, we were on a more precise path. There was a strong ‘all-in-it-together’ mentality. We put our trust in our governments and the medical profession, and this was largely rewarded. But we have seen an unravelling since,” Ms Motto said.

“And as the intensity of a crisis lessens, we begin to interrogate the response. We see the other problems around us in the harsh light of day, such as health advice versus politics, multiple corporate and government scandals, workplace issues such as the return to the office and the ongoing ‘Great Resignation’, plus growing concern on issues such as climate change. As we continue to traverse the ‘new normal’, it seems we are a little less trusting, more cynical and more divided.” 

In addition to flexible working amid COVID-19, climate change was also among the top ethical challenges for the next 12 months, with ensuring climate change and environmental issues continue to receive attention and action being a priority for a third of respondents — the third-rated most pressing ethical challenge in the index.

In conversation with Lawyers Weekly, Dr Phoebe Wynn-Pope (pictured), head of business and human rights at Corrs Chambers Westgarth, said that this issue is a “critical challenge”, both ethically and otherwise.

VIEW ALL

“The legal profession is taking a number of initiatives. As organisations transition, the legal advice they receive will be critical for an orderly transition to net zero, and lawyers are working together for these aims,” she explained.

“There is the Net Zero Lawyers Alliance that, among other things, commits lawyers to reducing their own emissions, providing net zero aligned advice, and increasing pro bono time to projects to achieve climate objectives.”

Additionally, the index revealed that despite growing concerns for climate change, the federal government and multinational corporations have the highest urgent ethical obligations to act (84), whereas individuals register as having the lowest obligation (80).

“Governments and all organisations have a huge obligation to address climate change. On the one hand, governments have to establish the policy and regulatory settings to provide certainty to the market to guarantee the change, the R&D and the investment needed for us to deliver on the Paris Agreement,” Dr Wynn-Pope added.

“On the other hand, multinational and other corporations must factor in the environmental and human capital costs of doing business — so we can move to a sustainable future.”

Moreover, over 40 per cent of respondents said that organisations have an urgent ethical obligation to take action on climate change, even if it reduces profits, results in job losses and results in fewer jobs.

“Organisations have an obligation to deliver on behalf of their shareholders. In the past, short-termism has meant that environmental and human costs of operating have not always been factored in,” Dr Wynn-Pope added.

“Organisations that continue to operate without consideration of their impact on the environment, or indeed the changing climate’s impact on their operating model, will find it increasingly difficult to meet their fiduciary obligations.”