Ethics are situational

“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?

Advertisements

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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s