Abstract

Rule 301 in the Code of Professional Conduct — Confidential Client Information — has traditionally been strictly interpreted. In some instances this has placed CPAs in a situation where their own personal moral standards are in conflict with the Code of Professional Conduct. Moral reasoning is suggested as a means of resolving this conflict. The process of moral reasoning is illustrated by contrasting Act Utilitarianism with Rule Utilitarianism. The actual resolution of a moral conflict may result in a CPA violating the Code of Professional Conduct as it is presently being interpreted.