Authors Parker and Rotunda both write their articles with the intent of identifying methods that ensure the preservation of legal ethics and encourage professional standards in large law firms. While both authors share a large degree of commonality on most key points, they differ significantly in two main areas, the reasons why lawyers introduce ethical traps and the possible methods for achieving this. There is a strong theme of workplace culture inextricably intertwined with professional ethics present in both articles as well as an emphasis on organizational structures, however Parker and Rotunda approach these concepts from different angles. Parker argues that the root cause of ethical violations in a broader law firm context is the pressure associated with identifying and avoiding the almost limitless list of possible ethical misconduct scenarios, which causes lawyers to become more willing to taking shortcuts that border on ethical violations. Rotunda, however, develops this concept of workplace anonymity that can be observed in larger law firms. He argues that in a law firm consisting of hundreds of lawyers on several continents, maintaining a high degree of ethical responsibility is nearly impossible and suggests that the moral implications of being caught for ethical violations are less concerning considering the personal consequences. and the professional distance between a lawyer and his colleagues. Parker's reasoning appears to be more applicable to lawyers in the early stages of their careers than Rotunda who takes a more holistic approach in his argument. Parker's argument is less strong here because, while ethical pressures could certainly lead lawyers to attempt to take advantage of short... middle of paper... there are numerous differences surrounding the development and practice of ethics legal and personal. obligations. When it comes to these unpleasant points, Rotunda's article certainly appears more convincing and rational considering his solid development of the notion of anonymity in the workplace that serves as the basis of his arguments. Parker's approach ultimately boils down to simple ethical stress-induced workplace pressures, although both certainly make sense on a logical level. As for preventive measures, Rotunda's approaches attempt to protect the law firm more than Parker's measures which could be seen as a rather ambitious attempt to turn ethical violations into inevitable mistakes for early career lawyers. Neither author appears to be willing to consider alternative punishments that might be seen as soft for those who commit ethical violations.