Is “Have a Nice Day, You Piece of Shit!” An Unethical Goodbye?

An ethics complaint has been filed against an Illinois attorney who, as he left a courtroom, bid farewell to his opposing party with the words,  “Have a nice day, you piece of shit!” The alleged legal ethics violations are Illinois Rule 4.4, which prohibits using means that have” no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, humiliate or burden a third person,” and Rule 8.4, which among its provisions forbids “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.”

It seems unlikely that the Illinois Bar will find these Rules to have been violated to the extent justifying discipline. Make no mistake: the statement is unethical. Continue reading

ER Ethics: “Oh…should I not have done that? Was that wrong?”

Most Unethical Facebook Conduct of the Week: Staff members at a Long Beach, California hospital took pictures of a gruesomely wounded man in the emergency ward (his throat was cut) and posted them on Facebook. Yes, they really did they did. Continue reading

Well, If The Washington Post Won’t Fire A Reporter For Intentionally Publishing Lies, At Least It Gets Angry At Him

Mike Wise, a Washington Post sportswriter and columnist deliberately posted a phony scoop (about Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger) on Twitter, as an experiment to see how widely it would be picked up. His plan, he now says, was to correct the lie with a follow-up tweet.  Due to bad luck or the intervention of the God of Journalism, however, his Twitter account froze, and what was supposed to be a near immediate correction took almost forty minutes. Several internet sites, from the Miami Herald to NBC’s ProFootballTalk, passed on the original tweet, attributing it to Wise.

Faced with a staff reporter who intentionally published a lie for no other reason than to see what would happen, the Post reacted according to its concern regarding the seriousness of his conduct—that is, deceiving those who trust him, as a member of a legitimate media organization, to report only the truth and to respect the trust of his and his paper’s readers—and suspended him for one month. Continue reading

Ethics Dunce: Beau Friedlander

Beau Friedlander is a contributor to the Huffington Post who decided it was time to show just how vicious, uncivil and unhinged a committed progressive could be, there being ample evidence of these qualities on the other side of the political spectrum. So…

1. Friedlander wrote an angry and hate-filled rant slandering Tea Party members, Mormons, and Republicans and the American public generally;

2. He included, as the piece’s centerpiece, this:

“I hereby offer to negotiate a $100,000 payday to the person who will come forward with a sex tape or phone records or anything else that succeeds in removing Glenn Beck from the public eye forever. I am not offering the cash myself, but I will broker the deal and/or raise the money for what you bring to the table. (And it better be good.) If you have the goods, or if you want to contribute to a slush fund to buy more takedowns (probably not tax deductible), please contact me at: glennbecksextape@gmail.com.” Continue reading

Note to Lawyers: Celebrities Have Confidences Too

Eric Turkewitz, on his New York Personal Injury Law blog, properly and pointedly flags an outrageous instance of a lawyer running to the press with information the professional ethics rules governing lawyers say that he must keep  confidential absent permission to reveal them.

Stuart Goldberg, a Chicago criminal lawyer, was consulted by former child actress-turned-celebrity-bad-girl-turned-prisoner Lindsay Lohan as she sought new counsel to help her with her long-running legal woes. Lohan decided to pay her legal bills to someone else, and it was the first smart move Lindsay has made in a long, long time. Goldberg demonstrated his trustworthiness by dashing over to People Magazine and blabbing about his impressions of Lohan during their meeting as well as the content of their discussion. Continue reading

Trust, the News and Journalist Biases: You Can’t Get There From Here

Over at Tech Crunch, founder Michael Arrington responds to the firing of Octavia Nasr and the resignation of Helen Thomas with this argument:

“I think journalists should have the right to express their opinions on the topics they cover. More importantly, I think readers have a right to know what those opinions are. Frankly, I’d like to know sooner rather than later just how insane some of these people at CNN and Fox News are. To stop them from giving me that information is just another way to lie to me.”

Arrington is right, of course. The pose that journalists are politically objective is almost always a fraud, and efforts by organizations like The Washington Post and the San Francisco Chronicle to prevent their reporters from doing things like attending political rallies for politicians they admire or expressing strong opinions on social websites have nothing to do with preserving journalistic objectivity, but rather with preserving the illusion of journalistic objectivity. “All this bullshit about objectivity in journalism is just a trick journalists use to try to gain credibility, and the public eats it up,” Arrington says.

But Arrington is also wrong.  Continue reading

Ethics Dunce: Ken Griffey, Jr.

The reports are that Hall of Fame-bound Seattle outfielder Ken Griffey, Jr. was passed over as a pinch-hitter in a recent Mariners game because he was asleep in the clubhouse. Other Mariner players leaked this embarrassment to the press; Griffey won’t discuss it, except to say that the reports are “not entirely accurate.” Others have noted that the outfielder is a serial napper, and has slept during games in the past. In other words, no big deal.

It is a big deal. Griffey gets paid $2,350,000 in 2010 to play baseball or be available to play baseball for approximately three hours a day for six months. If he’s napping during that three hours, he hasn’t fulfilled his obligation to be fully fit, awake and ready to play.

“But the baseball season is a grind!”

$2,350,000.

“It’s boring just sitting on the bench!”

$2,350,000.

“You don’t know what it’s like playing a professional sport!”

$2,350,000!

When a police officer, a fireman, a lawyer or another professional is unable to do his or her job because he is taking a nap, the response is usually a warning, or even dismissal. Homer Simpson sleeps on the job in his position at the nuclear energy plant, but 1) he’s a cartoon character and 2) he isn’t making $2,350,000.

There is a minimum level of diligence, loyalty and commitment employers are entitled to from those they employ, no matter what their salaries are. Sleeping on the job when one is making millions, however, adds significant theft to the mix. If Griffey wasn’t ill or hadn’t hadn’t had a recent run-in with a tsetse fly, he not only owes the Mariners an apology; he owes them about $14,000.

Ethics Dunces: Prof. Peter Tague and Chief Justice John Roberts

In today’s world of text-messaging, Twitter, Facebook and e-mail, intentionally throwing a rumor into a crowded room is only marginally better than falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowed theater. Thus Ethics Alarms regretfully has to pronounce Georgetown Law Center professor Peter Tague’s puckish stunt of last week irresponsible and unethical.

Demonstrating how unreliable it was to accept media accounts from un-named sources, Prof. Tague told his first year law class that he had learned from a “reliable source” that Chief Justice John Roberts was about to announce his retirement. Some nimble-fingered Twitter-user (or many) promptly sent the rumor into cyberspace, where it rapidly found its way onto scoop-hungry websites, especially those made giddy by the prospect of President Obama having the chance to replace one of the Supreme Court’s most conservative judges with a progressive one. By the time Tague announced to the class that his “scoop” was a fraud, just thirty minutes later, the fake story was multiplying like a virus. Continue reading