Lawyers' Ethics and Landmark

Imagine the following scenario. A law firm in a major city undertakes much work in media and intellectual property areas. Clients might be seeking to protect copyrights or attack them. The crucial point is that no other lawyers in the firm should be committed to organizations whose positions might make maintaining that independence difficult.

Suppose then some lawyers in the firm are acolytes of Landmark and might have even persuaded the law firm to subsidize their Landmark courses under the guise of continuing professional development.

Now imagine a client comes to the firm who is being threatened with a lawsuit by Landmark. Landmark is not a client of the firm. What then is the position of the firm with respect to taking on the client?

If the lawyers have disclosed their interests, the firm could say 'we can't accept this client.' But, as is likely, the (Landmark) lawyers haven't made any disclosures, then would the firm be in breach of conflicts' rules.

I suspect it could be since those lawyers would find themselves in a situation where to give the client zealous advocacy could be compromised by their adherence to the defendant organization.

Professional service firms--law, accounting, consulting--should audit their members' allegiances to external organization to prevent such conflicts coming down the pipeline. Or they could face potential malpractice lawsuits. At least, there are challenging ethical issues abounding.

Q: What Exactly is the Purpose of Landmark? A: It's a Racket

Most people get sucked into debates about Landmark's brainwashing techniques. This is important because of the consequences to individuals and relationships. Yet the most important issue is often sidelined.

Landmark Education is designed to make lots of money for its owners. Nothing wrong with that perhaps, but when you are running what is basically a pyramid scheme something is very wrong.

Landmark charges high "tuition fees" for its courses. They are designed for you--the punter--to keep buying more of them. No single course is ever sufficient in itself. The result is that Landmark is reportedly earning around $70 to $80 million a year.

It has two more tricks it uses. The first is that the punter must bring along new recruits. If not, there is chastisement. The second is that punters are expected to volunteer their time on the phones and at meetings. Landmark has very few employees. This is why Landmark falls afoul of various countries' labor laws.

Landmark likes to target professionals--investment bankers, lawyers, and other financial types--because, to paraphrase John Dillinger, "That's where the money is." These are people who have been high achievers and will feel questioning about the value of what they do.

So on the one hand, there is a spiritual vacuum or malaise, and on the other, there is the cash to allay it. Landmark has identified its market targets with supreme care.

What is most surprising is how gullible these professionals are at the hands of a sophisticated organization like Landmark. Their gullibility leads them into questionable behaviors. In the French TV documentary on Landmark, a medical doctor who graduates from the Forum is shown describing how he is telling his patients to attend the Forum because that will cure their ailments.

This is a clear breach of ethics in any society or profession and should be sanctioned by the professional body.

So ask yourself, have you been approached by your lawyer or doctor or accountant or banker and asked to attend a Landmark meeting? Have you been told that it will be the best thing you could do for your life? Whether you are a client or friend or both, the one who asked you was behaving unethically at your expense.

Can you really trust the judgment of professionals who behave this way and who are so gullible, to really put your interests ahead of any other? Anyone who has been in this situation should have serious, serious doubts. Because they are putting Landmarks profits ahead of you.

How Landmark Legitimates Itself

One of the keys to Landmark's success is the missing element that is in its name. How do I mean this? 

If you google Landmark, what comes up is "Landmark Education". Most forget that second tag. But it is this that enables Landmark to worm its way into the heart of conventional thinking and organizations. And when you have an array of "graduates" from your courses, respectability looks promising.

Universities, for example, are keen on promoting personal self-development plans for their students to equip them supposedly for the workplace. This is precisely the opening that Landmark seeks to insert its programs.

Even law firms without their full knowledge are supporting Landmark with lawyers earning continuing legal education points for taking their courses. But remember, Landmark IS NOT ACCREDITED BY ANY SIGNIFICANT EDUCATIONAL SPONSOR.

Because Landmark uses a variety of volunteers who work with them and their own organizations it eases the process of introducing Landmark techniques into the legitimate workplace.

Added to which we see how graduates can overstep the line when they start to suggest to clients  (I know lawyers who have attempted to sign up clients) or patients (as did the doctor in the French documentary). This becomes unethical.