The Appeals Court Judges Violated Ethics Laws

Model Rule 5.5(B)- Attorney Howe, left a new hire, Carl, unattended, while also suggesting that he may conduct interviews in his office without specifying particulars regarding his presence or direct supervisory responsibilities. In hindsight, Attorney Howe could be indirectly contributing to the unauthorized practice of law due to his gross negligence to supervise his paralegal.

The second ethical problem in this case relates to the Rigas family’s use of publicly-held corporate funds as a personal “piggy bank.” The Rigases used the company jet for personal reasons “without approval of the Board of Directors”, on one occasion flying to Africa for a safari (Markon & Frank, 2002). On another, one of John Rigas’ sons used a corporate jet to pick up an actress friend of his (Grant, Young, & Nuzum, 2004). The former CFO claimed that Adelphia’s funds were used by one of Rigas’ sons to buy a condominium, and to build a $13M golf course (Grant, Young, & Nuzum,

The following case is one of the most famous white-collar crime cases known to date. Enron Corporation was an American energy company based out of Houston, Texas. Kenneth Lay formed Enron in 1985 after a huge merger. Over time Enron’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and other corporate executives misled auditors and the board of directors in major financial transactions. Thus, $11 million dollars was lost by shareholders after Enron’s stocks dramatically fell in the end of 2001. Enron was then bankrupt. In this case, many Enron executives were sentenced to prison, a rare punishment for white-collar crime. As a result of this incident, the Sarbanes- Oxley Act was enacted. This act ensured that there would be

As I was looking for stories involving attorneys violating ethics by taking advantage of their clients, I was utterly shocked at how many news stories populated. The one that caught my eye was an attorney out of Salem, Massachusetts.

What did the judge do wrong? Which judicial selection option—either appointment, election, or merit—would help to reduce instances of judicial misconduct?

In this case, the judges decided that a court, either state or federal, is required to appoint an attorney to

I personally agree with the PBS Frontline episode in that partisan elections can promote corruption in the political world. Thus, I do not believe that partisan elections is a good way of selecting judges. Due to its structure, judges are elected by the people based on their likeability/appeal and political party affiliation, aspects I do not think should be the primary reasons to vote in a judge. Rather, the judge should be judged and elected based on their character and accountability as a political figurehead. Citizens want a reliable, impartial, and sustaining judge who is able to make the right decision based on the laws and current facts provided. How can a judge be impartial when working a case if a lawyer present donated a large sum to his campaign during election? I, along with the public, do not think the judge could be impartial as evident by the poll taken and found that 83% of the public believe judges are influenced by outside campaign contributions (PBS Frontline). This is the same concept found in the baseball reference of allowing an umpire, who has been paid by baseball players, to impartially referee a game (PBS Frontline). In both situations, I do not believe the judges would be able to fairly and neutrally preside over the case, making the system potentially corrupt over time and not a preferred method of selecting judges.

United States judge Irving R. Kaufman once said, “The judicial system is the most expensive machine ever invented for finding out what happened and what to do about it.” Over the course of the United States, the Supreme Court has decided issues which have a great impact on future generations. The leader of this court needs to have intricate understanding of the United State Constitution and judicial system. By holding many different roles in the judicial process,

The $15 million wrongful termination lawsuit (Oehler v. The State Bar of California et al., case number BC610699, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles) that hit the State Bar of California echoes allegations made by the bar’s former executive director pointing towards rampant ethical violations. Plaintiff Sonja Oehler’s LinkedIn profile lists her previous title as the bar’s former administrative specialist. Rather than being let go from her position for a lack of ability or dedication to the job or a necessary reduction in staff, Oehler alleges that she was fired from her job because she knew too much about rampant ethical violations: deceit, deception, incompetence and falsification of issues on the part

Those who are interested but not informed have another disadvantage aslo, “Lawyers and and justices do not reveal all the background factors, emotional issues, political considerations, provate relationships, and personal beliefs that informed a particular argument or decision” (203). Eventhough these disadvantages are very apparent, there is still an understanding of a case withouth being knowledgable of the details of each reference. If one examines court records carefully they will be knowledgabe of clues of a cases background to find more valuable

In the Summer of 1974, President Richard M. Nixon and seven of the President’s administration staff were tried for refusing to turn in audio recordings from within the Oval Office. Nixon claimed immunity from the grand jury with “executive privilege,” this means you don’t have to give information to other branches of government to protect the country. This all began with President Nixon’s cover-up of the break in of the Watergate hotel in Washington, D.C., Nixon hired seven men to break into the Democratic headquarters to perform a wiretap; they were caught and arrested by the police. It came to be that the seven men knew people within the Committee to Re-elect the President.

In their article “Judicial Integrity and Budget cuts in the States: Is the Devil in the Details?”, Bradley S. Chilton and Stephen M. King (2013) explain their research on the impact budget cuts have on judges. Chilton and King begin with several quotes from judges on the issue of pay reduction, and the authors explain that the Constitution protects the salaries of federal judges but the recession has left many state judges vulnerable to reduced pay, as a judge’s salary is not protected in many states. Chilton and King’s research was done to discover three things: the actual impact budget cuts have on judges and the state judicial system,

A key factor to Enron’s fall from grace, was due to the foibles of its corporate leadership, in particular, how certain executives were willing to overlook unethical behavior in lieu of profits. For example, Ken Lay, Enron’s Chairman, espoused the ideals that Enron had higher level of morals than the average company (Gibney, 2005). However, on several instances, he failed to enforce or show that level of commitment. In the Vahalla case, he allowed traders that were involved in manipulating and gambling the company’s earnings to continue their operations, despite being warned of their fraudulent behavior (Gibney, 2005). His justification, at the time, was that Vahalla was the only part of the company that was making any money (Gibney, 2005).

Mr. Bernay mention Judge Cardozo of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, as an example that judges go through different cases a day and having to decide to pick one. How I see that example is that as PR field, no matter what clients we get, we can have a choice to help them or not. Same goes for judges while they decide on a case to work on.

Wall Street can have a heavy influence on a company such as Enron's ethical standings. During the Enron debacle, Wall Street played a key role in the decision-making process for the leadership team of Enron. Wall Street roles in determining Enron's overall value as the company influenced Enron to push the boundaries of ethical standards. During the trial of Enron's executive's former Internet division chief of Enron Ken Rice testified: "That he and his co-conspirators chose to lie about their network's capabilities to gain credibility on Wall Street and boost Enron's stock value." (Flood, 2005) Enron's decision to inflate their values to Wall Street did exactly what the company executives wanted and the company's stock value skyrocketed. "Wall Street obediently obliged, inflating Enron's share value by as much as 75% from the time the company started bragging about its prospects." (Lashinsky, 2001) When Enron's bubble finally burst and