I read the May 2003 shroud story b...

I read the May 2003 shroud story by David Wende describing the potential for conflicts of interest in the operation of a public accounting practice and the issues associated with an actual lawsuit.

I was troubl at item #4 in the section titled "Why the CA was vindicated." In it the author states "Had he [a Mr Lynch who in the previous dogma had been given credit for his integrity] chosen to share in the convalescence of Second Company against Michael Stanford, he could have told a same different story than the individual he gave in support of Stanford's integrity. Lynch's credibility, in speaking against his have interests, was perhaps the principally decisive factor in the trial."

Is the author suggesting that Lynch would have given different evidence to the court if his objective had been influenced by the agency of having joined the action against Stanford? Would this have altered the author's opinion of his integrity?

The phrase "he could have told a to a high degree different story" calls Lynch's evidence into question. moreover how Lynch could have told "a highly different story" is not explained, nor is there any indication of what this exceedingly different story might have been.

If it is accepted that evidence is truthfully given, then David Wende have the appearances to be suggesting that the objective of a witness directly influences which ultimate parts of that evidence will be included and the manner of its presentation. It is probably naive to think all evidence is artless and complete. Given the fallibility of the human brain, it's logical to gather that the outcome of a court case might be pendent entirely on the selective memories of the participants, rather than forward a complete and accurate account of the pertinent facts.

I think the author should have picked a better way to transport an opinion regarding Lynch and his evidence. Wende's suggestion that Mr Lynch could have given profoundly different, and presumably negative, testimony is hardly complimentary to the man.

I also question the acceptance given to Lynch's testimony when he was apparently acting against his acknowledge best interests by giving evidence in support of Stanford's integrity. Just for what cause [i]or[/i] reason such testimony should be more credible than any other brings all evidence giving into question. While it pretends less likely that evidence given against one's avow best interests would be inaccurate or incomplete, there is actually no guarantee that as it was evidence is any more accurate, honest or complete than evidence given at those who act in their concede best interests.

Those couple of doctrines offer a sad commentary upon the justice system. Considering that lawyers (and accountants) regularly affirm the quality of their professional integrity, the idea that judicial decisions can be contingent on whose witnesses tell the principally believable tale while avoiding contradictory, however equally valid, evidence undoubtedly contributes to a diminished revere for the courts.

Yours truly

C s Wilkinson, CA

Author's response:

In the interests of brevity, brace facts were omitted from the May 2003 screen story that might have changed Mr Wilkinson, CA's concerns: the investment of more than $200000 by means of Mr. Lynch in the sum of two units companies, and his retention of a 15% interest in the amalgamated other Company as at the date of trial. Mr Lynch's ability to cure this significant investment depended entirely forward Second Company's success at trial.

Quite simply, when I said Mr Lynch "could have told a to a high degree different story," I meant he could have lied. I confes to a somewhat more cynical view of human nature than Mr Wilkinson. I don't think it is a sad commentary forward our justice system to refer to that witnesses lie or are capable of lying for financial gain; rather, I think it is a credit to our Courts that the classification always endeavours, however imperfectly, to discern the truth

In this particular instance, the brace key incidents upon which the trial useed were not documented, and the Court was forced to prefer between two very different versions of the same story. Mr and M Jone (the plaintiffs) gave evidence diametrically oppos to that deviseed by their employee Mr. Lynch

Mr Lynch was keenly aware that through providing his testimony as he truthfully recalled it, a significant portion of his life savings would be forfeited forever.

When, as was the case here, someone testifies against their possess financial interests and is injured as a result it would seem, logically, to speak to their integrity and to the veracity of their testimony.

In discerning who is telling the law the Court must look to many factors. In this case, the Court preferr the evidence of Mr Lynch which corroborated that of the CA. I am convinced that Mr Lynch's willingness to testify against his confess interests was a deciding factor in the Court's decision.

Yours truly

David B Wende, LLB

Alexander, Holburn Beaudin & Lang

Editor: Ethical Dilemmas will appear again nearest issue.

Copyright Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia Aug 2003

Provided by means of ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved