Business law ethics and professional responsibility

Business Law Ethics

Special Directions for Cases 1 -- 5: The following cases have been carefully chosen to represent several of the most pressing ethical dilemmas facing American business today. When answering the questions at the end of each case, consider the ethical character trait or traits that would guide your decision-making. Avoid the theory of subjective ethics. Be less concerned with the "right" answer and more concerned with applying the ethical decision-making process properly.

Howard Wieder, an attorney, asked the members of the law firm for which he was employed, to assign one of their number to act as his representative in negotiating the purchase of an apartment in a condominium. An attorney in the firm, L.L., was designated to handle Wieder's negotiations. Unfortunately, L.L. did everything but handle Wieder's condominium negotiations. In fact, he not only neglected the negotiations, but also made many "false and misleading representations," carefully calculated to cover up that neglect. As soon as Wieder figured out that L.L. was lying to him, he reported the misconduct to two senior attorneys in the law firm. Each of these senior attorneys admitted that L.L.'s misconduct did not surprise them. Moreover, they revealed that they knew "(t) hat [L.L.] was a pathological liar and that [L.L.] had previously lied to [members of the firm] regarding the status of other pending legal matters." What ethical character traits have the senior attorneys violated? Explain. Wieder v. Skala, 609 N.E.2d 105 (NY).

For evils to occur, sometimes all that is necessary is for good people to stand aside and do nothing -- as clearly has been the case at this particular firm. However, not only do the attorneys have a moral obligation to the truth. As attorneys they have an ethical obligation to ensure that justice is done according to the standards of the American Bar Association so that the legal profession is not besmirched, and that their clients are not injured. The 'PLUS' system of ethical decision making, is often defined as "Step 1: Define the problem Step 2: Identify alternatives Step 3: Evaluate the alternatives Step 4: Make the decision Step 5: Implement the decision Step 6: Evaluate the decision" (Ethics Toolkit, 2004) However, the problem is not simply regarding Wieder's clients whom have been harmed, but the fact that the firm's other attorneys owe an obligation to the clients who may be harmed by the offending attorney's incompetence and lies. Also the firm may be harmed, including its reputation built up by other attorneys then themselves.

The ethical character trait of greatest consideration is professional obligation and ethics. This is why New York State has laws that protect so-called whistleblowers. Unfortunately, in the facts of the actual case, the whistle-blowing plaintiff was let go from the firm. The defendants discharged him as a result of his insistence that L.L.'s misconduct be reported, although this reporting was required by DR 1-103(A). According to the cast that resulted, "in the fourth cause of action, he [Wieder] alleges that the firm's termination constituted a breach of the employment relationship. In the fifth cause of action, he claims that his discharge was in violation of public policy and constituted a tort for which he seeks compensatory and punitive damages."

But in the decision-making by the court, the court feared that upholding such a standard in the case would place an undue burden on employers, namely that obligation could be implied which would be inconsistent with other terms of the contractual relationship. "Thus, in the case now before us, plaintiff's employment was at will, a relationship in which the law accords the employer an unfettered right to terminate the employment at any time. In the context of such an employment it would be incongruous to say that an inference may be drawn that the employer impliedly agreed to a provision which would be destructive of his right of termination." Ethically, the plaintiff may have been sound and the defendant's decision unsound, but the court feared setting a precedent regarding employment that could be legally abused, given the right to terminate clause in the employee's contract. (NY Court of Appeals Collection, 2004)