Michael P. Maslanka, assistant professor of law, UNT Dallas College of Law.

While America was on the verge of a revolution, Thomas Paine wrote, "… these are the times that try men's souls." Isn't that the truth today as well? But these are also the times that put a person's soul on trial. Temptation to be unethical is greatest when times are as bad as they are now. Here though are cognitive hacks to help others, and yourself, stay on the straight and narrow.

Have a troubled seeming friend or colleague? Want to find out what is going on with her? Do not ask if everything is OK. Why? A rote question produces a rote response. Instead ask, in a conversational tone, "What's on your mind?" You might need to ask several times, but the invitation will finally be accepted and the truth forthcoming.

The truth is often self-generated—try this hack from, "Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die," by Chip and Dan Heath when you believe a colleague is thinking of cutting ethical corners, cheating others and avoiding responsibilities. The hack is based on a quote from Abraham Lincoln about the "better angels of our nature." Let's say a colleague, under pressure to meet billing quotas, tells you she plans to use to use a "heavy pen" (a euphemistic phrase for billing hours that were not worked). Tell the colleague, "Lola, I know you are the kind of lawyer that values your hard-earned reputation and would never do anything to corrupt it." What then goes through Lola's mind? She thinks, "You know, I am that kind of lawyer," and then asks herself, "What would a lawyer like me do in a situation like this?" Ultimately, she concludes, "I am the kind of lawyer that does not inflate a client's bill because of extraordinary circumstances or even normal ones."

There are other tools in the cognitive tool belt. Here is one where you help another imagine the future consequences of a present action. Let's say in the craziness and disorder of present times a colleague is retained to defend an age and disability discrimination case. Before he files an answer, he flips through the client file and sees a memo on which employee should be terminated in a reduction in force. The 67-year-old plaintiff's name is on the list—in fact, it is highlighted—along with her age which is circled, her health issues which are listed, and her retirement eligibility, which is detailed. The lawyer tells you he is going to shred the document, "It is not under subpoena or a discovery request and I am free to do so. Heck, we have not even filed an answer yet." Your choice: be the ethics police ("No, that is wrong!") or use prospective hindsight ("Let's imagine that you shred. Later the client testifies in a deposition that he created a document listing these factors but it was destroyed per our lawyer's counsel. Now let's imagine we are standing in front of a federal judge explaining this decision." Opting for the first option generates resistance while opting for the second option generates self-enlightenment.