I don't get the public angst that corporate officers are going through over certifying their financial results. What's the big deal? That they're being asked to certify the accuracy of work and judgments made by others? Pheh. Lawyers have been required to do that for years.

Here's what I'm talking about: any lawyer who practices in any federal court in a civil case is subject to the provisions of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under this rule, any legal document submitted to the Court must be signed by the attorney preparing the document; by signing, the attorney is certifying to the Court that

to the best of the [signer's] knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--

(1) it [the document] is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

To quote the rule, "the sanction [for violating the rule] may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation."

Now, granted, Rule 11 has had its critics, and a somewhat bumpy history. [article] But on the whole, most people in the profession believe that it has been a good thing. [article] If anything, the certification rules enforce what ought to be understood in any functioning society: we are each responsible for upholding the integrity of the process, and we are each accountable if our actions interfere with the integrity of the process in any way. What's the problem with that?