conflict of interest

Premature Ethics Alarm on Obama’s Judicial Appointment

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Republicans are sounding an ethics alarm tonight.

“Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?” shouts the Weekly Standard website, and it’s clear The Standard thinks it knows the answer. After all, as the President was meeting with ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November,  the White House sent out a press release announcing that Obama had nominated Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. And the nominee’s brother,  Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah, is one of the recalcitrant ten.

Hmmmm. Looks shady, no? Continue reading →

Sunday Ethics Trio: CREW, Coercion and Condiments

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

The C Street Horror…Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington appears to have jumped the rails in its hysterical protest of President Obama appearance at the National Prayer Breakfast, a venerable if odd event that dates from the Eisenhower administration. Some of CREW’s objections are that the event’s organizers, a group with the admittedly sinister-sounding name “The Family,” preaches “an unconventional brand of Christianity,” (As does Rev. Wright. So what?) lacks transparency (Just like the Obama administration of late. This is a matter worth investigating, exposing and reforming, but if the President has to boycott organizations based on a lack of transparency, he’ll be living on the streets), has been “linked” to unsavory causes (Translation: CREW doesn’t like the group’s politics), and that the C Street Christian home the group maintains in Washington has housed a lot of politicians with ethical problems, like Gov. Mark Sanford and Sen John Ensign. That’s a bizarre complaint, don’t you think? Continue reading →

Trust the Science, Not the Scientist?

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

The Wall Street Journal has a depressing piece about recent examples of unethical and fraudulent conduct in the world of science, including, naturally, the latest global warming flap resulting from the UN mistakenly warning that the Himalayan ice caps were melting away,  and would be gone by 2035. This story, coming on the heels of the East Anglia email revelations, has added to justifiable public confusion over climate change, how fast it is happening, how well it is understood, and why governments are so eager to throw billions at a “solution” when there seems to be so much uncertainty. Continue reading →

The Resume, the Bigot, and “The Ethicist”

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

From Randy Cohen, “The Ethicist” of the New York Times’ Magazine, comes an ethics question that I would think has an obvious answer. The fact that it isn’t obvious to many people is worrisome.

It was obvious to Cohen. A lawyer evaluating resumes for applicants to join his firm asked if he could ethically reject a qualified applicant solely because the applicant was a member of the Federalist Society, an organization much in favor during the Bush Administration, dedicated to studying and promoting conservative ideology. The potential associate’s duties had nothing to do with politics. Cohen, a good liberal if there never was one, was emphatic about whether the reviewing partner could ding the applicant for liking Justice Scalia and agreeing with George Will: Continue reading →

The Arnie Becker Rule [Updated 12/11/16]

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

For about 20 years, the consensus has been building in the legal profession that a lawyer sleeping with his clients is not only a bad idea, but also should be prohibited by the formal ethics rules. States like California, Oregon and New York quickly adopted such a rule while other bars resisted; when the ABA added the “no sex with clients” provision to is Model Rule 1.8 in 2003, more states followed suit. Now Virginia, one of the most respected bars in the country, is considering its first  pronouncement on the subject, in the form of a formal ethics opinion. Continue reading →

Tiger Woods Ethics, Part II: Yes. It Matters

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

There are two main strains among the culturally corrosive arguments in support of Tiger Woods. One, discussed in Part I, is the “great athletes don’t need to be great human beings,” a contention that chooses to ignore the inescapable fact that they are paid to behave like great human beings, whether they are or not. While this argument is mostly obtuse, the second strain is the more ethically offensive. Washington Post columnist Michael Wilbon embraced it with both arms in his defense of Woods entitled, “Some context on Tiger.” Its thesis: virtually all big-time athletes cheat on their wives, and if you had the opportunities and temptations they do, you’d cheat too. Translation: “It’s no big deal”: Continue reading →

Ethics Quote of the Week

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

“Ms. Hanes was awarded the position based solely on her merit.”

—– Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana) spokesman Tyler Matsdorf, “explaining” that although the Senator’s  state office director, Melodee Hanes, and Baucus were in the midst of a year-long romantic affair when the Senator submitted her name to President Obama as a candidate  to be appointed U.S. attorney in Montana, the nomination was completely unrelated to the relationship.

Well.

This clearly calls for..

An Ethics Alarm Pop Quiz! Continue reading →

Lobbyist Ventriloquism and the Abysmal State of Congressional Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

When Washington, D.C. attorney Robert Trout delivered his closing argument in the trial of former Rep. William Jefferson (now known as “Inmate CB476881”) for, among other things, accepting a large cash bribe that was later found in his office freezer, he told the jury that the prosecution was hypocritical and unfair. After all, he said, “If seeking political help was a crime, you could lock up half of metropolitan Washington, D.C.” Jefferson’s actions may have been unethical, and they were certainly a mistake, but really now: isn’t this just what all Congressmen do? Jefferson, Trout argued, just got a little bit carried away.

Jefferson was convicted, so there is some distance left for our faith in our elected representatives to fall before it hits rock bottom. The argument was still ethically disturbing in two respects. First of all, Trout’s pitch amounted to a jury nullification plea, a defense in which a jury is encouraged to ignore the law, and that is unethical lawyering.

Second, Trout may well have been right. Continue reading →

Breast Cancer Screening Standards and Conflicts of Interest

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

From Reuters: CHICAGO – Cancer experts fear new U.S. breast imaging guidelines that recommend against routine screening mammograms for women in their 40s may have their roots in the current drive in Washington to reform healthcare…

The decision of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, an influential group that crafts guidelines for doctors, insurance companies and policymakers, to backtrack on decades of medical advice urging women to begin getting regular mammograms at the age of 40 has stirred debate and anger.  The most alarming aspect of the report, however, is that the new standards being put forth may reflect U.S. health care cost management considerations rather than proper concern for the health of U.S. women. Continue reading →

The Trouble With Sarah

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

A toxic mixture of elitism, class bias, sexism and the liberal slant of the media has made Sarah Palin the most unfairly treated public figure in memory. Even when the double standards were obvious–Palin  derided as “unqualified” to lead, when the Democratic presidential choice had even less relevant experience; non-stop portrayals during the 2008 campaign as a loose-cannon flake, while the Democratic vice-presidential candidate was largely ignored despite a long and hilarious career as…a loose-cannon flake; David Letterman’s long refusal to apologize for his joke about Palin’s young daughter being sexually assaulted, despite the taboo against using the young children of public figures as joke fodder—the attacks have never abated or retreated to any reasonable standard of fairness. Continue reading →