4 ms·

Doesn't matter, listening to their lawyers doesn't make it right. Lawyers exist to protect their clients from legal exposure, not to provide a moral compass. I

Doesn't matter, listening to their lawyers doesn't make it right. Lawyers exist to protect their clients from legal exposure, not to provide a moral compass. If Google's goal is truly to create a safer work environment for everyone, then this is a no-brainer. They had zero problems giving a known-harasser millions to walk away quietly but now they're fighting to avoid responsibility for cases already in the system. Reeks of hypocrisy.

fareesh 8y ago
My assumption was that lawyers would have factored in the public relations aspect of the decision too, and are confident they can win both in the proceedings as well as in the court of public opinion.
- 0x262d 8y ago
  this still doesn't make it not evil.
- ergothus 8y ago
  That doesnt match the training, approach, nor skillset of the lawyers I know. They advise on legal matters, the client decides based on the sum total. Lawyers would explicitly avoid confusing legal opinions and business ones. Then again, my lawyer friends aren't google lawyers.
  - pluma 8y ago
    Seconded. Most general advice ("IANYL/TINLA") I've heard from lawyers in Germany about e.g. GDPR boiled down to "1. Don't. 2. If in doubt, see 1." -- it's their job to recommend against taking any risks even if the risks are sometimes necessary. It's your job as a business to assess whether that risk is still worth it.
  - Bartweiss 8y ago
    The only actual business decisions I've seen corporate lawyers make are "no, that project is too legally risky to do". And even then the decision technically belongs to someone else, it's just that no one involved was both willing and able to contradict them. Anything beyond that pretty much reduces to "here are the legal options available, and their likely legal consequences." Which is how things should stand - obviously morally, but even from a "ruthlessly maximize shareholder value" perspective. It's at least possible that reputational damage cashes out as a bigger financial risk (e.g. via lost staff, failed recruitment, or new regulations) than increased damages from lawsuits. Corporate counsel is almost certainly not the most qualified to calculate the size and likelihood of those risks. (And morally, of course, it would amount to Pichai et al abdicating responsibility for Google's decisions.) I suspect counsel does have an outsize effect on these decisions, but not because they have final authority. Rather, the risks they present are generally large, immediate, and quantifiable. People tend to prioritize even unlikely risks of that sort against the slow, ambiguous decay of destroying a reputation or failing to follow a changing industry.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  I think this falls somewhere between "moral hazard" and "lawyers aren't assigned to do that". If an open case saw a change of venue and then produced large damages, that's easily interpreted as a failure of the legal team to protect Google. If Google's retention rate or recruiting efficiency drop by some percentage, it might well cost more in lost expertise and recruiting work than a bad lawsuit would. But it wouldn't necessarily be discernible as a result of this decision, or even the sexual misconduct issue in general. I wouldn't expect the lawyers involved to be able to predict the size of that second impact and decide accordingly. Certainly corporate lawyers sometimes enforce counterproductive decisions, but it's almost always down around the project level. For an issue Pichai is personally engaging with, it'd be pretty strange for a lawyer to go beyond saying "This is the safest legal option, but it may have other consequences. If you don't take it, here's the level of legal risk." Somebody else ought to be weighing the costs, and in an ideal world ethics, of making that decision.

fareesh 8y ago

My assumption was that lawyers would have factored in the public relations aspect of the decision too, and are confident they can win both in the proceedings as well as in the court of public opinion.

0x262d 8y ago
this still doesn't make it not evil.
ergothus 8y ago
That doesnt match the training, approach, nor skillset of the lawyers I know. They advise on legal matters, the client decides based on the sum total. Lawyers would explicitly avoid confusing legal opinions and business ones. Then again, my lawyer friends aren't google lawyers.
- pluma 8y ago
  Seconded. Most general advice ("IANYL/TINLA") I've heard from lawyers in Germany about e.g. GDPR boiled down to "1. Don't. 2. If in doubt, see 1." -- it's their job to recommend against taking any risks even if the risks are sometimes necessary. It's your job as a business to assess whether that risk is still worth it.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  The only actual business decisions I've seen corporate lawyers make are "no, that project is too legally risky to do". And even then the decision technically belongs to someone else, it's just that no one involved was both willing and able to contradict them. Anything beyond that pretty much reduces to "here are the legal options available, and their likely legal consequences." Which is how things should stand - obviously morally, but even from a "ruthlessly maximize shareholder value" perspective. It's at least possible that reputational damage cashes out as a bigger financial risk (e.g. via lost staff, failed recruitment, or new regulations) than increased damages from lawsuits. Corporate counsel is almost certainly not the most qualified to calculate the size and likelihood of those risks. (And morally, of course, it would amount to Pichai et al abdicating responsibility for Google's decisions.) I suspect counsel does have an outsize effect on these decisions, but not because they have final authority. Rather, the risks they present are generally large, immediate, and quantifiable. People tend to prioritize even unlikely risks of that sort against the slow, ambiguous decay of destroying a reputation or failing to follow a changing industry.
Bartweiss 8y ago
I think this falls somewhere between "moral hazard" and "lawyers aren't assigned to do that". If an open case saw a change of venue and then produced large damages, that's easily interpreted as a failure of the legal team to protect Google. If Google's retention rate or recruiting efficiency drop by some percentage, it might well cost more in lost expertise and recruiting work than a bad lawsuit would. But it wouldn't necessarily be discernible as a result of this decision, or even the sexual misconduct issue in general. I wouldn't expect the lawyers involved to be able to predict the size of that second impact and decide accordingly. Certainly corporate lawyers sometimes enforce counterproductive decisions, but it's almost always down around the project level. For an issue Pichai is personally engaging with, it'd be pretty strange for a lawyer to go beyond saying "This is the safest legal option, but it may have other consequences. If you don't take it, here's the level of legal risk." Somebody else ought to be weighing the costs, and in an ideal world ethics, of making that decision.