Comments on: Vioxx and Corporate Apologies http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/06/vioxx_and_corpo.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:22:46 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: bruce http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/06/vioxx_and_corpo.html/comment-page-1#comment-58113 bruce Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:30:56 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/06/vioxx-and-corporate-apologies.html#comment-58113 judge weinstein is an enemy of our constitution and should be removed from the bench and sent to a home for senile nut cases. judge weinstein is an enemy of our constitution and should be removed from the bench and sent to a home for senile nut cases.

]]> By: bruce http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/06/vioxx_and_corpo.html/comment-page-1#comment-58112 bruce Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:30:45 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/06/vioxx-and-corporate-apologies.html#comment-58112 judge weinstein is an enemy of our constitution and should be removed from the bench and sent to a home for senile nut cases. judge weinstein is an enemy of our constitution and should be removed from the bench and sent to a home for senile nut cases.

]]> By: Jennifer Hendricks http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/06/vioxx_and_corpo.html/comment-page-1#comment-58111 Jennifer Hendricks Fri, 30 Jun 2006 06:00:01 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/06/vioxx-and-corporate-apologies.html#comment-58111 That makes sense--I'm glad you're raising these issues. That makes sense–I’m glad you’re raising these issues.

]]> By: Elizabeth Nowicki http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/06/vioxx_and_corpo.html/comment-page-1#comment-58110 Elizabeth Nowicki Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:49:40 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/06/vioxx-and-corporate-apologies.html#comment-58110 Thank you, both, for the comments. The first one requires more time than I have to respond right this moment. The second comment, however, might require only my clarification: In terms of a lawyer "letting" a client apologize, I mean that sometimes a lawyer is professionally and ethically obligated (in my view) to passionately object to something that a corporate client wants to do or, in some situations, resign if the client will not act or refrain from acting. (I discuss this point in a recent article of mine regarding attorney liability for securities fraud: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=905876) My point regarding apologies is to query whether there are times when the good attorney should either recommend to a board making an apology or be willing to consider seriously the notion of a board so doing, despite the knee-jerk liability-based objection. I am not intending to take clients "off" the hook. I am wondering whether there is something to be said for putting the hook into lawyers (meaning "suggesting that there is something to the notion that a good litigation and corporate counsel should consider the role of apologies when dealing with mass torts"). Thank you, both, for the comments. The first one requires more time than I have to respond right this moment.

The second comment, however, might require only my clarification:

In terms of a lawyer “letting” a client apologize, I mean that sometimes a lawyer is professionally and ethically obligated (in my view) to passionately object to something that a corporate client wants to do or, in some situations, resign if the client will not act or refrain from acting. (I discuss this point in a recent article of mine regarding attorney liability for securities fraud: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=905876)

My point regarding apologies is to query whether there are times when the good attorney should either recommend to a board making an apology or be willing to consider seriously the notion of a board so doing, despite the knee-jerk liability-based objection.

I am not intending to take clients “off” the hook. I am wondering whether there is something to be said for putting the hook into lawyers (meaning “suggesting that there is something to the notion that a good litigation and corporate counsel should consider the role of apologies when dealing with mass torts”).

]]> By: Jennifer Hendricks http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/06/vioxx_and_corpo.html/comment-page-1#comment-58109 Jennifer Hendricks Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:37:40 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/06/vioxx-and-corporate-apologies.html#comment-58109 Part of the problem is confusion about the lawyer's role. It is not the _lawyer's_ decision whether the _client_ will apologize. The lawyer's job is to advise and recommen--based on her assessment of the practical consequences as well as her own sense of right and wrong. Framing the problem as one of zealous lawyers who won't "let" the client apologize lets the client off the hook. Part of the problem is confusion about the lawyer’s role. It is not the _lawyer’s_ decision whether the _client_ will apologize. The lawyer’s job is to advise and recommen–based on her assessment of the practical consequences as well as her own sense of right and wrong. Framing the problem as one of zealous lawyers who won’t “let” the client apologize lets the client off the hook.

]]> By: Ted http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/06/vioxx_and_corpo.html/comment-page-1#comment-58108 Ted Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:47:11 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/06/vioxx-and-corporate-apologies.html#comment-58108 <a href="http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/002679.php" rel="nofollow">I've responded</a>, but my trackback seems not to have taken. I’ve responded, but my trackback seems not to have taken.

]]>