
| An Affiliate of the Law.com Network |
||||
| ||||
| ||||
I am a big fan of questions: They focus, they clarify, and they resolve. So, I was struck by the "Three Rules of Thumb" included in the West Point ethics system, as explained by Ronald A. Howard and Clinton D. Korver in "Ethics for the Real World: Creating a Personal Code to Guide Decisions in Work and Life." If a cadet can answer all of the following three questions "no," then a decision passes muster. If not, it is not put into action. Here they are:
1. Does this action attempt to deceive anyone or allow anyone to be deceived?
2. Does this action gain or allow the gain of privilege or advantage to which I or someone else would not otherwise be entitled?
3. Would I be dissatisfied by the outcome if I was on the receiving end of this action?
Questions are more valuable than statements because statements are static. They are like fish on ice at the local market. A question engages, provoking thought. I think that company or firm mission statements should consist of questions, not the blah, blah, blah of a statement.Can a former in-house lawyer use attorney-client privileged information to establish that he was fired for being a Sarbanes-Oxley whistle-blower? On Sept. 30, the Administrative Review Board at the Department of Labor said yes. According to Jordan v. Sprint Nextel Corp., the opinion issued by the ARB, Jack Jordan worked as in-house counsel at Sprint Nextel. He asserts that he got the heave-ho for opposing conduct he believed violated various rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission. But to prove his case, he needed to use internal reports he made to his superiors, in which he told them of his beliefs. The ARB said it would be inconsistent for Congress, as it did when it passed Sarbanes Oxley, to require lawyers to blow the whistle on a material violation of SEC rules but then afford them no protection for doing so. One pro-employer footnote: The administrative law judges who hear these cases can issue protective orders to protect the privileged communications from disclosure. It is a short opinion (17 pages) and worth a read.


