4 ms·

I don't understand why "professional embarrassment" should come into account when considering sanctions. If the actions were worthy of sanction, the lawyer shou

I don't understand why "professional embarrassment" should come into account when considering sanctions. If the actions were worthy of sanction, the lawyer should be sanctioned regardless of the news articles written about it all.

engineer_22 3y ago
I think the idea is he'll be "black balled". He will have a hard time making partner if it's well known he's a fool.
rjmunro 3y ago
What is the purpose of sanction? As far as I know it's to stop him doing something similar again, and deter others from trying it. He's not going to do the same thing again unless he is literally mad. That would be total career suicide. No amount of sanction will make a difference. Other lawyers are likely read about the case and know that if they do it, they will either be more embarrassed in the press or will face sanctions. The sanctions are unlikely to make the case more well known than it already is.
- ianferrel 3y ago
  There are multiple theories (and philosophical underpinnings) on the purpose of punishment. The one you've identified is deterrence: We should punish so that people don't do the bad thing in the future. But another one is retribution: By causing harm, you should have some harm done back to you. To even the scales of justice as it were. Your argument is a very solid one for why a sanction is not needed for deterrence. The court of public opinion has punished him enough. But what about when the next attorney does this, or the 100th, and it's not novel enough to get a bunch of NYTimes coverage? If they get sanctioned, will they not say "What about the first guy? He didn't get sanctioned?!" Will there be some doubt that justice was really done? Think about the cases where some rich white kid skates by with a slap on the wrist for some widely-publicized crime and the judge says, in effect "Look, this is a good kid from a good family who's been widely castigated in the press. He's getting kicked out of his Ivy league school and probably won't even get hired at a top law or consulting firm in the future. Is it really necessary to send him to jail like a poor person? Hasn't he suffered enough?" I'm not saying it's the best or only argument, but there is an argument for the court imposing sanctions purely on conduct with the court, and ignoring what the newspapers are doing.
  - rjmunro 3y ago
    When the 100th attorney does this and doesn't get mentioned in the New York times, they won't be able to use the argument of "professional embarrassment" to reduce their sanction.
    - ianferrel 3y ago
      Right, exactly. So the question is: Is it just for a court to impose punishment only on some bad attorneys based on other consequences in the world? There's not a single simple or obvious answer to that question. It depends on what you think the purpose of the punishment is.
likpok 3y ago
The offending lawyer isn't a name partner of the firm -- almost certainly he will be fired. The professional embarrassment will definitely make it difficult for them to get a new job. That said, I suspect this is just the defense they're making. You argue with the facts you have, not the facts you wish you had, and the facts here are pretty bad. Personally I don't really agree with the defense -- this is a serious fuck-up and there should be a clear signal that this is Not Okay. "I wasn't malicious, I was just lazy" isn't the best look, even if it's the best the guy has.

engineer_22 3y ago

I think the idea is he'll be "black balled". He will have a hard time making partner if it's well known he's a fool.

rjmunro 3y ago

What is the purpose of sanction? As far as I know it's to stop him doing something similar again, and deter others from trying it. He's not going to do the same thing again unless he is literally mad. That would be total career suicide. No amount of sanction will make a difference. Other lawyers are likely read about the case and know that if they do it, they will either be more embarrassed in the press or will face sanctions. The sanctions are unlikely to make the case more well known than it already is.

ianferrel 3y ago
There are multiple theories (and philosophical underpinnings) on the purpose of punishment. The one you've identified is deterrence: We should punish so that people don't do the bad thing in the future. But another one is retribution: By causing harm, you should have some harm done back to you. To even the scales of justice as it were. Your argument is a very solid one for why a sanction is not needed for deterrence. The court of public opinion has punished him enough. But what about when the next attorney does this, or the 100th, and it's not novel enough to get a bunch of NYTimes coverage? If they get sanctioned, will they not say "What about the first guy? He didn't get sanctioned?!" Will there be some doubt that justice was really done? Think about the cases where some rich white kid skates by with a slap on the wrist for some widely-publicized crime and the judge says, in effect "Look, this is a good kid from a good family who's been widely castigated in the press. He's getting kicked out of his Ivy league school and probably won't even get hired at a top law or consulting firm in the future. Is it really necessary to send him to jail like a poor person? Hasn't he suffered enough?" I'm not saying it's the best or only argument, but there is an argument for the court imposing sanctions purely on conduct with the court, and ignoring what the newspapers are doing.
- rjmunro 3y ago
  When the 100th attorney does this and doesn't get mentioned in the New York times, they won't be able to use the argument of "professional embarrassment" to reduce their sanction.
  - ianferrel 3y ago
    Right, exactly. So the question is: Is it just for a court to impose punishment only on some bad attorneys based on other consequences in the world? There's not a single simple or obvious answer to that question. It depends on what you think the purpose of the punishment is.

likpok 3y ago

The offending lawyer isn't a name partner of the firm -- almost certainly he will be fired. The professional embarrassment will definitely make it difficult for them to get a new job. That said, I suspect this is just the defense they're making. You argue with the facts you have, not the facts you wish you had, and the facts here are pretty bad. Personally I don't really agree with the defense -- this is a serious fuck-up and there should be a clear signal that this is Not Okay. "I wasn't malicious, I was just lazy" isn't the best look, even if it's the best the guy has.