This case is a good example of the notion that reasonable people can disagree on the outcome of a legal analysis. David and I certainly disagree, as did at least one dissenter in the case itself as I recall.

I agree with Mr. Driscoll that the Connecticut ruling at least exposes lawyers in Connecticut, and their clients, to a potentially dangerous situation. The court essentially punished this associate for refusing to make a snap judgment, a snap judgment that could have jeopardized the lives and well-being of two small children had he chosen to speak up. I’m struck by the irony of how low a priority this court assigned to the clients’ interests in making their decision, while simultaneously lecturing to the associate the importance of legal ethics.

It is not “catastrophizing” to point attack this opinion. Had the ruling gone the other way, we know for a fact that 2 small children would have been wrongfully in the hands of a violent, convicted drug dealer instead of their mother. Considering that outcome to be a correct one because of the rules of ethics is elevating form over substance, i.e., the form of our ethical rules over the substantive goals of our system of justice. If legal ethics require attorneys to endanger innocent and helpless clients who have done no wrong, ethics advocates need to take a step back and revisit their goals in interpreting those rules.

This case is a good example of the notion that reasonable people can disagree on the outcome of a legal analysis. David and I certainly disagree, as did at least one dissenter in the case itself as I recall.

I agree with Mr. Driscoll that the Connecticut ruling at least exposes lawyers in Connecticut, and their clients, to a potentially dangerous situation. The court essentially punished this associate for refusing to make a snap judgment, a snap judgment that could have jeopardized the lives and well-being of two small children had he chosen to speak up. I’m struck by the irony of how low a priority this court assigned to the clients’ interests in making their decision, while simultaneously lecturing to the associate the importance of legal ethics.

It is not “catastrophizing” to point attack this opinion. Had the ruling gone the other way, we know for a fact that 2 small children would have been wrongfully in the hands of a violent, convicted drug dealer instead of their mother. Considering that outcome to be a correct one because of the rules of ethics is elevating form over substance, i.e., the form of our ethical rules over the substantive goals of our system of justice. If legal ethics require attorneys to endanger innocent and helpless clients who have done no wrong, ethics advocates need to take a step back and revisit their goals in interpreting those rules.