Are there lessons for the legal profession to learn from the financial crisis?

As the autopsy on the financial crisis continues,  major causes for the breakdown of the banking profession have already been identified:  (a) pervasive conflicts of interest, (b) a widespread belief that evading regulation was not only acceptable but required in order to compete, (c) a massive disregard for anything other than self-interested, short-term profit, (d) widespread professional silence about well understood risks to clients and to the financial system , (e) failure of private firms and government to exercise fiduciary responsibility by preventing, exposing and punishing fraudulent, destructive conduct and (f) a badly mistaken belief that the public interest would be served by allowing firms and clients to do whatever they wanted to do because, in the end, a free market would serve as the best, most efficient, most impartial regulator.  This last belief was patently foolish because government – in exchange for campaign contributions purportedly in the name of preserving free market capitalism, allowed the creation of financial firms that were too big to fail.  At the same time that government was preserving free market capitalism, government was playing a central role in ensuring that the free market could not or would not be allowed to work.

Are there any similarities between the legal profession and the business of finance?