Conflicts of Interest

Lawyers are not allowed to act for both sides. There is a very good reason for this. How could anyone be wholly committed to his client's cause if he is also acting for the other side. If lawyers were allowed to do so they would know the arguments of both sides, the strengths and weaknesses of both cases and the strategies of both camps. They would find it impossible to be impartial and would inevitably favour one side more than the other, probably the side that they thought had the stronger case or the biggest pockets or which was likely to give them more work in the future. We all know that conflicts of interest are dealt with in banks by putting up so called chinese walls so that that part of the bank advising clients on investments can take an independent line from that part of the bank representing companies using another part of the bank for its share/bond issue services. We all squirm at how accountants rarely find that they have any conflict of interest but that could be jealousy. In any event the Yes4AV campaign should return all donations given to it by the Electoral Reform Society and terminate any further assistance to its campaign of personnel provided by the Society. The Society has a massive conflict of interest. Not only I understand is it involved in the administration of the AV referendum and being paid by us poor taxpayers to do so, it is also most likely to benefit if the Yes campaign wins by becoming involved in the administration of future General Elections and the supply of electronic counting machines. By not being open The Electoral Reform Society must have known it was acting immorally and all its contracts to run any election must be withdrawn. How can one have any confidence in its impartiality.