Ethics

Story here.  In the wake of financial scandals, we are seeing a lot of this -- corporate officers claiming that the corporation's counsel threw the officers under the bus.  Sometimes the officers claim that they were a co-client (as in the Broadcom matter); sometimes they claim that they were scapegoated (this story); sometimes they claim that the prosecutors forced the company to turn on the officer (KPMG).

The plausibility of those claims, coupled with the mismatch between the officer's resources and the company's, leaves me wondering if the playing field is fair for the officer/agents.  Are we seeing a systematic problem, an occasional problem that probably can't be eliminated, or no problem at all?