Before even disclosing who he was, the angry caller demanded, "Are you a lawyer?" Hearing that I was, he proceeded to tear into me for our article nn a trial that put the judge and the prosecutor in an unfavorable light. The case was then under appeal.

Reader objections to an article are commonplace in any publishing environment. What was unusual was the basis for the complaint: a supposed violation of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct. I was being accused of unethical conduct for publishing a story critical of lawyers.

The caller was relying on Rule 8.4 (d): "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." He was, that is, not relying on a rule designed for journalists but, instead, on one designed for practicing lawyers.

I probably get six or seven calls a year like that. They raise a basic question: Does a writer or editor who also happens to he lawyer have a different, higher standard to adhere to when covering the legal profession? Does our magazine, the official magazine of the ABA, have an ethical obligation to refrain from publishing stories critical of lawyers because all lawyers have a duty to uphold the integrity of the profession?

We are, I admit, obliged to uphold the integrity of the profession. But, I contend, we do that when we illuminate significant wrongdoing. I reject the notion that because a case is under appeal we should refrain from writing about it lest we prejudice the administration of justice. The general press is not so constrained; the ABA rule shouldn't be warped into an interpretation applicable only to legal publications.

The ABA Rules were drafted for practicing lawyers, not for legal journalists. To the extent they are relevant to my news judgment, I will consider them (based on what I feel I owe the law). Otherwise, I must follow another standard, the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ Code). Unfortunately, the SPJ Code provides less guidance than the ABA's does.

In law school I was intrigued by Canon 9 of the old Code of Professional Responsibility: "A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of impropriety." The rule focused on the lawyer's obligation to uphold public confidence in the profession. Nice idea, I thought, but rather vague and subjective. How likely is it that consensus can he achieved that an action appears to be proper (or improper)? The rule invites speculation about motivation, which is generally the reason why people conclude something doesn't look right.

I find no equivalent requirement in the SPJ Code. The closest provision says, "Journalists should conduct their personal lives in a manner that protects them from conflict of interest, real or apparent." 'that addresses only their personal lives and only to the extent of avoiding one area of possible ethical problems, conflicts of interest.

Generally, journalists are urged to avoid only the impropriety itself; they need not consider how the action may appear to the public. This is a significant weakness in the SPJ Code. Some years back when I was still the Journal's news editor, we faced a situation that illustrates the point.

Researching an article on personal injury lawsuits charging flawed highway designs, we interviewed an expert who had written a book on the subject. The expert, having been interviewed, had his publisher place an advertisement for the textbook and requested that the ad be adjacent to the article.

Our advertising department saw nothing problematic about the request, no need even to advise the editorial department. When the magazine was published, the editorial department was angry.

Nothing editorially wrong had been done. The expert had been consulted only as a source. From the advertising perspective, nothing wrong had been done because it is not unethical for advertisers to seek such an affinity with the readers.

But the overall appearance was one of editorial prostitution-selling our editorial integrity for advertising.

The SPJ Code states that "Journalists must be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know the truth." Clearly, our reporter was under no obligation to the textbook author, but that isn't how it appeared to the reader. The impropriety was avoided; the appearance of impropriety was not.

But even the issue of appearance of ethical violations seems to be shifting in the wake of what has loosely been called "political correctness." Partisans are quick to castigate editorial decisions as unethical when those decisions do not reflect the perspective of the adherent.

Let me give an example. Our lead feature article dealt with the large sums governments were paying to informants, particularly in drug cases. For our cover, we decided to photograph a rat perched on a detective's shoulder, whispering into his ear while two more rats waited their turn.

We could not find photos of rats in the right position to "chrome in" by computer. The remedy was to kill three rats, stuff them, and pose them. I authorized it.

When a rival legal publication wrote about the cover's genesis, the result was a flurry of letters from animal rights organizations protesting my "unethical action".

Was it unethical, or merely politically incorrect from the animal rights point of view? Does it matter that the rats were to have been thrown alive into a python's pen for food? Was it not more ethical-or, at least, more humane-lethally to inject them than to let a snake suffocate them?

What determined how I answered was the animal in question. Rats are not an endangered species. Exterminators are paid to go after them. Had it been another kind of animal-say, three basset hounds-I would not have authorized killing them for our cover.

I am satisfied that killing rats for the cover was not, in itself, unethical -politically incorrect maybe, but not unethical. However, I admit that it appeared improper to some. And, because I just suggested that the appearance of impropriety should be a violation of journalism ethics, I must admit doubt about my own suggestion. My trouble with rats shows how hard drawing hard ethical lines can be.

While I'm on the subject of political correctness, perhaps I should mention another difficult question. Does a publication have an ethical obligation to promote cultural, racial, and ethnic diversity in its editorial columns, especially in the selection of graphics?

Hardly a month goes by that I don't get a letter from some constituency pointing out that I didn't have enough-pick one-women, blacks (African-Americans?), Hispanics, gays, or other group as sources for use in photos or sources for articles.

Here the issue is not avoiding an impropriety or even the mere appearance of one, but rather of failing to use the magazine to promote a (perceived) social good.

It is one thing (and quite necessary for survival) for a publication to reflect changes in its readership. It is another for a vocal segment of the readers to clamor for something like a quota system under the threat of accusations of unethical journalism. Publication changes should be voluntary and consciously planned.

I find the attempt to link political correctness with journalism ethics troublesome. It shifts the traditional notion of what is ethically demanded from avoidance of wrongdoing to a requirement of meeting someone's conception of right-doing. That many journalists I know embrace facets of political correct journalism is even more disturbing. The concept of freedom of the press suggests a wide range of opinions, both popular and unpopular-the "marketplace of ideas" in the words of Justice Holmes.

Similarly, Justice Brandeis once wrote that the remedy for falsehoods and fallacies was "more speech, not enforced silence." I fear that many journalists, fearing to seem out of the mainstream, are easing into an era of enforced silence regarding the politically incorrect. Silence is enforced by branding the socially unpopular word, phrase, or thought as unethical.

Ethical standards are by nature constructed on consensus. But, as we move to merge the ethical with the politically correct, are we not in danger of sacrificing the tolerance a democratic society needs to function effectively?