Ethics

I was a bit skeptical of the ABA's amendment of Rule 1.10 to allow the screening of laterals, in part because the timing gave it a whiff of "we're just a cartel protecting out members' interests."  As such, I was struck by the ABA President's candor in this month's ABA Journal, explaining that the amendment "is particularly important for the employment prospects of those whose careers are affected by the recession."  I realize that smart, ethical, well-meaning people can disagree about the amended rule's merits, and that there are non-laughable reasons why the amendment might be good for the efficient allocation of legal resources.  But should the merits of a legal ethics rule ever turn on the employment prospects of lawyers?