4 ms·

If you're going to be made to pay out and concede liability, why not simply go to trial and suffer the same legal fate? It's not there as a mere legalese recita

by phrz 6y ago

If you're going to be made to pay out and concede liability, why not simply go to trial and suffer the same legal fate? It's not there as a mere legalese recitation or to shield the defendant's ego. To finish your rhetorical question, the reason you pay out but admit no wrongdoing is in recognition of the risk of financial liability stemming from the litigation.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
vkou 6y ago
> why not simply go to trial and suffer the same legal fate? The same reason most people take a plea bargain. Punitive damages. "Prison for six months, or the risk of a jury sending you to prison for ten years" is a pretty strong incentive to plead guilty. If the punitive damages can be expected to be 10-20x of what you'd settle for, you'd probably just take the plea.
- Matticus_Rex 6y ago
  Yeah, but innocent people have to take pleas all the time because of it.
ashtonkem 6y ago
I want them to go to trial. I think it’s incredibly unseemly that we as a society bring down the hammer on individual drug dealers, but let corporate ones wash the blood off their hands with shareholder money. Each one of these people deserves a pair of steel bracelets and their day in court in front of a jury of their peers.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  I think McKenzie would be found innocent in a court of law. This is a settlement because they don’t want to be dragged through the mud in PR. They provided advice, the company chose to act on it. Unless their Advice Misslead regarding the legal risk, they are in the clear. If it was misleading, the damages would be to Purdue.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    I’m no lawyer, but providing advice to a client who then goes ahead and breaks the law with said advice sure sounds like it meets the federal charge of conspiracy.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      That really depends on the the advice is. I don't see a big problem with "This would make you a bunch of money, but you should have your lawyers look at it" or "this will make you a bunch of money, but has a high legal risk". If the advice is: "this is illegal, and here is how to avoid getting caught" then I could see that being a crime.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        You are adding requirements and escape clauses to the federal charge of conspiracy that are not actually in the law. Here is the relevant text of 18 U.S. Code § 371: > If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. The question, fundamentally, is whether or not what McKinsey did counts as to "effect the object of the conspiracy". If yes, there is no magic "go talk to your lawyer" phrase to escape criminal liability, for the same reason why you can't bring a lawyer with you and depend on attorney client confidentiality to protect you from search warrants and prosecution.
        s1artibartfast 6y ago
        Yeah, I agree with you. You would have to show intent to do something criminal at the core of it. I’m not sure that’s there for McKenzie.
        ashtonkem 6y ago

by phrz 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

vkou 6y ago

> why not simply go to trial and suffer the same legal fate? The same reason most people take a plea bargain. Punitive damages. "Prison for six months, or the risk of a jury sending you to prison for ten years" is a pretty strong incentive to plead guilty. If the punitive damages can be expected to be 10-20x of what you'd settle for, you'd probably just take the plea.

Matticus_Rex 6y ago
Yeah, but innocent people have to take pleas all the time because of it.

ashtonkem 6y ago

I want them to go to trial. I think it’s incredibly unseemly that we as a society bring down the hammer on individual drug dealers, but let corporate ones wash the blood off their hands with shareholder money. Each one of these people deserves a pair of steel bracelets and their day in court in front of a jury of their peers.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
I think McKenzie would be found innocent in a court of law. This is a settlement because they don’t want to be dragged through the mud in PR. They provided advice, the company chose to act on it. Unless their Advice Misslead regarding the legal risk, they are in the clear. If it was misleading, the damages would be to Purdue.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  I’m no lawyer, but providing advice to a client who then goes ahead and breaks the law with said advice sure sounds like it meets the federal charge of conspiracy.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    That really depends on the the advice is. I don't see a big problem with "This would make you a bunch of money, but you should have your lawyers look at it" or "this will make you a bunch of money, but has a high legal risk". If the advice is: "this is illegal, and here is how to avoid getting caught" then I could see that being a crime.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      You are adding requirements and escape clauses to the federal charge of conspiracy that are not actually in the law. Here is the relevant text of 18 U.S. Code § 371: > If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. The question, fundamentally, is whether or not what McKinsey did counts as to "effect the object of the conspiracy". If yes, there is no magic "go talk to your lawyer" phrase to escape criminal liability, for the same reason why you can't bring a lawyer with you and depend on attorney client confidentiality to protect you from search warrants and prosecution.
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        Yeah, I agree with you. You would have to show intent to do something criminal at the core of it. I’m not sure that’s there for McKenzie.
        ashtonkem 6y ago