4 ms·

So directors and officers have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value, and therefore any obligation that conflicts with this duty is improper? I wonder

by cduan 17y ago

So directors and officers have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value, and therefore any obligation that conflicts with this duty is improper? I wonder whether the author would apply this to lawyers. They, after all, have fiduciary duties to their clients, such as that of zealous advocacy. Is he advocating that no ethical obligations should trump the lawyer's duty of zealous advocacy? If not, what is the distinguishing principle?

jhancock 17y ago
The lawyer analogy came to my mind as well while reading this article. The "Hollywood" version of a lawyer's duties to his client is narrow and not accurate. There are certainly lawyers that operate on this narrow definition, but its not inline with judicial process or state bar ethics and the lawyer's oath.