Legal ethics vs. business ethics Legal ethics and business ethics are alike in that they dictate, either by law or general standard, what is acceptable and what is not. They are different in that legal ethics are usually ensconced in laws and other enforceable standards whereas business ethics are not always a matter of law. For example, a handshake deal may or may not be enforceable in court (legal standards) but business ethics dictate that someone should follow through on what they promise. However, they are alike, regardless of the alw, in that people that violate them tend to be ostracized and labeled as unethical. Sometimes, it is possible to follow both business and legal ethics and still run afoul of other standards. For example, not giving a dollar to a bum on the street may not violate business or legal ethics but people can still view it poorly.

Topic 2: Rules of Professional Responsibility

Why do we have a specific set of rules for lawyers to follow? Who do the rules of professional responsibility for attorneys seek to protect, and why.

There are rules and regulations that all lawyers must follow because it is very important that the standards upheld in court are the same in every court. For example, if there are three similar cases in Kansas, New Jersey and New York, it is important that they all be held, conducted and done consistently. One reason it is important is because people's lives are literally in the balance when it comes to court cases, at least a lot of the time. Whether it is a lawsuit or a criminal case for first degree murder, there has to be consistency. It is generally presumed how the prosecuting attorney will act, how the defense attorney will act and so forth.

UNIT 7 DISCUSSION BD

Topic 1: Multinational Corporations

You have already examined situations where a company wants to open a market in a country...

Now consider this: You are the President of a large, publicly traded company based in the U.S. with offices in many other countries. You are in a very competitive field. A new market opens up in a foreign country with customs very different from ours. You and your competitors vie to be chosen by the ruling government. Breaking into this market may be essential to your company's continued success and even survival -- and your continued employment, as well as the jobs of thousands you employ, and the investment of thousands of shareholders. One catch: It is clear that the company that will be selected is the one that pays the highest "incentive fee" to the rulers. Whatever it's called, you know it's a bribe. One catch: It is clear that the company that will be selected is the one that pays the highest "incentive fee" to the rulers. Whatever it's called, you know it's a bribe. Should your company pay the incentive fee? Take a position and state it in the Discussion Thread. Support it with information from the article on Foreign Corrupt Practices, and the Internet links on Multinational Corporations, other links you have found, and the ethical and moral principles we have studied. Then respond in the discussion thread.
There are two main things that become clear from this question. First, the author of this report would have to opt out on paying the bribe. The second is that the author of this report will probably have to find a new job. The Foreign Corrupt Practices act as well as the general information out there for Multinational Corporations dictates that even if a bribe is commonplace or even legal in another country does not mean it is legal or acceptable in…