Thank you for sharing this!
Who are the most successful lawyers? Politicians. Try and think of an unethical one...too many to chose from. Hell, if religious laws don't prevent people from doing horrible things and then justifying it (and they don't), why would a code of conduct help anything?
If the heart of a profession is greed (and tech is or is getting there), then your code of conduct means nothing. You just gotta justify your actions, and tech companies already do that.
"We're changing the world for the better! (But don't mind us if we track, spy, manipulate, and price-gouge you along the way)."
Is that unfair? It feels unfair, but the actions of too many tech companies are deplorable and yet we've got tens of thousands of people working for them. Where do you draw the line? When do you become complicit (someone abuses data because you've built systems which allows and encourages it)?
It's really an argument of social norms, and how do you change those, especially (if like law was at one point), you are the industry to get into to make money? If that is the main reason lots of people get involved (from management on down), how do you build and maintain norms that say that quality and concern for the user comes before all else?
Obama, Clinton(s), Ghandi, Lincoln...none of whom were "successful" lawyers, but they all did just fine in politics.
As to your point about laws/code not preventing horrible things...they often times do. But no one is claiming laws always eradicate behavior (they can and have) that's why we put people on notice and create penalties because we know people violate the laws/rules anyway. Say Bill Clinton lying under oath, he was caught and the only one who disciplined home was the Bar of his home state: totally disbarred him. In other cases, the law itself might be immoral -take the British colonial law against Indian's making salt, and Ghandi violating it and being arrested, even after, as a politician he was able to change the law and the norms.
I think your main point is likely right, but your supporting examples are not. Wikipedia (at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Early_career_a...) says:
Lincoln became an able and successful lawyer with a reputation as a formidable adversary during cross-examinations and closing arguments
Likewise, we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Later_Arkansas...
She was twice named by The National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America: in 1988 and in 1991.[123] When Bill Clinton thought about not running again for governor in 1990, Hillary Clinton considered running, but private polls were unfavorable and, in the end, he ran and was re-elected for the final time.[124]
A compliment on Lincoln's cross examination skills does not make a successful lawyer, though he did practice and litigate and unlike the others (that I know about) established case law. As far as Hillary, I wouldn't put to much stock in The National Law Journal - it's like the national dean's list, rising star lawyers, AV rating. What do you really know of her career? Did she take cases of first impression; set case law; argue before SCOTUS; set a record on a monetary judgment/damages; become partner at an AM100 firm or white shoe firm; hold a meaningful judicial clerkship; become a federal judge?
These are all smart people, successful politicians, but as lawyers I'm not sure anything ranks them in the upper echelons ...that certainly doesn't mean they were failures, which is being read into my statement, I think. Despite the thread opposing me, I don't see any merit based support they were the most successful lawyers.
You added the word "most" :) Your revised statement is probably right
The secret of great fortunes without apparent cause is a crime forgotten, for it was properly done
The key part that people keep omitting is "without apparent cause". If the cause is apparent, there is no need to speculate about possible crimes: just look at the cause and decide if it's criminal or not.
The most public ones, sure. But not necessarily the most successful.
I don't know about that. Judging by OliverJones' post, corrupt lawyers could well be even worse without the formal code of ethics.
Case in point: The way Aaron Schwartz was treated. The prosecution seriously overstepped the boundaries of what can be considered ethical behaviour. Even worse, they did it for shady political reasons and personal career considerations.