“Attorney on Stand in Chevron Trial,” November 20, 2103 B9 http://on.wsj.com/1cGJysU
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?