Lawyers in the United States are not required to comply with anti-money laundering compliance procedures imposed on financial institutions that require gathering information about the identity of account owners and the source of funds or assets. By avoiding the duty to inquire about their clients, lawyers can turn a blind eye by focusing only on what the client wants without asking the harder questions about what led to seeking legal advice.

That may be the root of the issue of how lawyers enable their clients to engage in questionable transactions while avoiding any direct involvement, which allows them to claim to have done nothing improper.

If legal advice is viewed merely as a tool, just like a car, with no requirement to inquire any more deeply about the client’s background and intentions, then it is easy to see how lawyers become part of the problem. The lawyers who were caught on video by Global Witness can assert they were simply discussing options with a potential client, with no obligation to question too deeply because this was only a preliminary discussion that might not advance any further.

Lawyers often defend themselves by asserting that their only obligation is to represent their clients, with no greater public obligation. As long as they do not know the client will engage in criminal or fraudulent conduct, then advancing the client’s interests by ostensibly legal means is not only permissible, but a positive social good, even if their services might be misused.

The way to change this approach is to focus on the tools that lawyers have available by making it harder for clients to use their services to engage in misconduct. The Panama Papers detail the use of shell companies to hide assets, something The Times also described extensively in its series “Towers of Secrecy” articles about how the Manhattan condominium market is rife with anonymous owners shielding their identities behind corporate facades.

The Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act, which has been introduced in the House and Senate, would require states to gather the names of those who control corporations and limited liability companies, the vehicles used to hide the true owners of assets. These proposals have not gained any traction yet in Congress, with the American Bar Association opposing earlier bills on the subject. The Panama Papers may give a push to the effort to require that ownership of corporate entities be available to law enforcement, even if it is not publicly disclosed.

The Treasury Department is close to issuing a rule that would require banks to determine the identity of any individual owner of 25 percent or more of a corporation or L.L.C. that opens an account, along with individuals who exercise control over them. Lawyers will have to provide that information to banks if their clients are going to have an account, which may push lawyers to gather more information.