The charges brought by the Office of Thrift Supervision against the law firm of Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays, and Handler, in 1992 generated the most prominent legal ethics controversy of the decade. Despite massive attention to the case, the substance of the OTS charges has received little analysis and has been often mischaracterized. This article analyzes the charges and the bar's response to them. It concludes that the charges were plausible prima facie. It argues, further, that the response by bar organizations and leaders has been pervasively disingenuous and irresponsible. It also identifies and analyzes some broad ethical issues raised by the case about the participation of lawyers in financial scandals. The article concludes with an appendix reporting and assessing Kaye Scholer's response to the charges.

This article examines the social conditions of lawyers' moral agency, through the focus of the work of Stanley Fish. A central concept in Fish's work, and one relevant to understanding the nature of professional groups, is that of interpretive communities. This notion is examined to reveal its sociological as well as philosophical assumptions, and their implications for legal practice. The article takes issue with Fish's stance on the value of theory for practice and challenges the notion of discreteness of interpretive communities inherent in Fish's position. It argues that the resources for criticism within professional groups are more numerous and powerful than Fish allows. Taking two cases studies, it attempts to demonstrate the transgressive nature of some legal practices. In the final section, redefining the law school's community and interdisciplinary scholarship are suggested as devices for escaping Fish's “net.” A critical hermeneutics of legal practice is argued for.