[jodrellblank]

That wasn't part of the parent comment, but okay, here: Tesco finance chiefs accused of cooking the books and bullying the finance employees below them to misconduct themselves:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/tesco-fraud...

“The three defendants who are on trial in this case are not the foot soldiers who misconducted themselves. The defendants in this case are the generals – those who are in positions of trust, and who were paid huge compensation packages in order to safeguard the financial health of Tesco.

“These defendants encouraged the manipulation of profits and indeed pressurised others working under their control to misconduct themselves in such a way that the stock market was ultimately misled.”"

[OJFord]

It was at least implied, I thought it was the whole point, because obviously there are malpractising professionals full stop:

> [...] ethical obligations above and beyond their obligation to their employer. You will not find lawyers willing [on behalf of their employer] to perjure themselves [...]

but based on their response to your the examples, :shrug:.

[ForHackernews]

My point is that [ethical] professionals [who are not committing malpractice] have an obligation to their peers, as embodied in a professional code of ethics that is independent from and supersedes their obligation to their employers.

[Many/most ethical] accountants [who are not committing malpractice] will tell their employer, "no, I can't sign off on those fraudulent financial statements," but software developers [as a community, I'm sure someone will pop up with one colorful example] will not tell their employer, "No, I won't run fake bots on the site to inflate our user numbers," or "No, I won't implement this browser fingerprinting to violate our users' privacy."

The sibling commenter seems to be willfully misreading this as "all lawyers are ethical"