Ethics are situational

“Attorney on Stand in Chevron Trial,” November 20, 2103 B9

Well, at least, he says, he didn’t bribe the judge.  But ex parte contact with the independent, court-appointed expert and ghost-writing portions of that expert’s opinion – which would have been unethical in the US – was okay by him, although they refused to explain it.

I seem to recall an old legal principle, in the Hazel Atlas case as memory serves, that fraud in the application process – in essence fraud on the governing authority – vitiates a patent.  So what about the $19 billion judgment against Chevron (later cut in half)?

Okay, so where’s the information slant? Ghost-writing has risks? Entries in his diary, emails he sent, and outtakes from a documentary film that some say are “evidence of a conspiracy to defraud Chevron” or, arguably, the court.

Would your information governance/management policies and procedures have prevented “this,” whatever “this” is?  If not, why not?


Leave a comment

Filed under Business Case, Content, Controls, Definition, Discovery, Governance, Information, Legal, Policy, Requirements, Risk

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s