Integrity.

Integrity. Everyone wants it, in their leaders, in themselves, and in others, especially lawyers. Like pornography, integrity is something most people think they recognize when they see it, but defining it is elusive. Enter Stephen Carter, a professor of law at Yale University.

In this, his first in a trilogy of books exploring the elements of good charter, Carter tackles the difficult task of defining integrity and exploring how it works or should work in everything from politics to professionals sports to the legal profession.

Carter chose integrity as the subject of the first book because he considers it first in importance among the elements of good charter. For Carter, integrity is more than just honesty, forthrightness, or commitment - although each of these is a part of integrity.

His definition is more involved and requires three steps: (1) discerning what is right and wrong; (2) taking the right course, even if at a personal cost; and (3) openly acknowledging what you are doing. Carter is quick to point out that this is difficult to do. Yet, he finds the greater sin is not in failing the test, but rather in not making the effort.

Integrity doesn't always require one to follow the rules. The person with integrity may even be required to break the rules when they are believed to be wrong, as in the case of many acts of civil disobedience. Integrity also doesn't tell us what is right or wrong. It only provides a framework to guide us to the discernment of what is right. According to Carter, only by undertaking that examination can a person hope to achieve integrity.

Chapters cover politics, the news industry, performance evaluations, marriage, the law, sportsmanship, and civil disobedience. The chapter on civil disobedience is particularly interesting as Carter explores the sometimes fine line between civil disobedience as a moral act and civil disobedience as an act of convenience, self-interest, or anarchy. The chapter on the law, however, which should have been particularly interesting to lawyers, falls short. Carter's brief foray into the law touches on only two main subjects: his conclusions of litigants' willingness to lie and specific deceptions allegedly promoted by the legal profession.

Obviously, lying is antithetical to integrity, and it is difficulty for a system based on oaths to function if they are routinely violated. Carter's conclusions, however, even if correct, are less a comment on the law than a comment about the lack of integrity in modern society. Until truthfulness again becomes the order of the day, Carter's point seems to call for more lawyers to ferret out the liars.

Carter's observations about litigants' willingness to lie seem somewhat naive. The fact that some people lie hardly supports the sweeping generalizations he makes. It does not follow that because there is a right of cross-examination this must mean people lie in court in great numbers. More often than not, as any experienced practitioner knows, cross-examination does not expose intentional deceptions, but rather bias, limitations, and other factors that affect the weight to be given to a witness's testimony.

As far as the legal profession is concerned, Carter focuses on inconsistencies between lawyers' in-court and out-of-court conduct and within the rules of legal ethics. Consistency is critical to integrity. To the extent that lawyers - or others - act inconsistently, they surrender integrity. One cannot very well argue with Carter's point that the legal profession would benefit greatly from a strong dose of integrity or that its ethics rules could be made more consistent.

But Carter's criticism of lawyers is in part unfair because he does not distinguish between the lawyer as individual and the lawyer as advocate. Lawyers as advocates speak on behalf of the client and often may be called on to argue a view with which they personally disagree. That does not mean they lack integrity. In fact, by Carter's definition, integrity requires that very action.

An equally important point, which is not explored, is the point Carter makes concerning the absence of legal constraints on conduct and the implications of this for "tort reform" efforts. Carter notes that current libel law, which has greatly expanded publisher protection, has contributed to irresponsible journalism by largely removing the deterrent of civil judgments. Given the ongoing clamor by manufacturing interests and the medical and insurance industries for similar protectionism though the guise of "tort reform," Carter could have shed much light on what the ultimate societal impact of "tort reform" might be and whether or not these "reforms" will bolster the common good.

Hopefully, these are explorations merely postponed and not missed. Their absence, however, does not detract from Carter's main thesis or make Integrity any less provocative or challenging. In the end, the questions he raises need to be addressed by society and by each of us individually. In finding individual answers, we will each embrace the ideal of integrity. A final note: If you find this work thought provoking, stay tuned - Carter's next work will focus on the subject of civility.