Some people think my views on attorney-client privilege and reporting fraud, or possible fraud, or reporting of confident client information by over-zealous attorneys (you get the picture) are the very thing that corrupted the accounting industry in the first place.

Not so. I do indeed understand that the shareholder is the client (as do, I suspect, others who share my views), although I think it's possible (with my vast knowledge of corporate law and ethics, natch) to make a keen argument that the directors and/or managers are represented parties (I've no idea if there's even such a category). However, that's not my point.

The point is that the government and other governing bodies are too quick to make reactionary band-aid fixes without contemplating all possible consequences. Oaths, certifications, and what-not are just plain silly. Oaths might have their place in solemnizing the theater of the trial court, but they have little value in the business world. Because one affirms the validity of their accounts does not make it so, nor does it magically transform them into an ethical creature.

Create reasonable ethical standards. Enforce them with criminal penalties. If reformers want to put financial fraud on the same level as substantial bodily harm, this is where they should begin (after all, we don't have people swear they won't hurt or harm others -- we just expect it). It's a simple motivator that will certainly provide incentives to adhere. Reformers shouldn't bolt off half-cocked and create new ethical mucks that will force lawyers through quags that nobody ever intended to create (see previous for examples).