Ethics

For the first time in my life, I had to consult a lawyer about legal ethics.  Boiled down, I learned that a fraud may have been committed in connection with something I had had nothing to do with. There was no smoking gun, but I knew enough to know that someone could later argue I "knew" (see Rule 1.0 for a definition).  If I failed to report, then if things went south, so possibly did I.

This was a horrible place to be, as it would be for any lawyer.  The feeling of being put between a rock and a hard place was overwhelming -- if I reported, I clearly met the duty if it existed. If I didn't, there was risk to me.  But, as is probably often the case when reporting issues crop up, reporting would create problems for people I knew, and likely cost me time and emotional capital in dealing with the whole thing.  

Recognizing that erring on the side of caution was not the easy option is something that I had not felt as an advisor and teacher.  It is a powerful feeling -- you want to do what is right, but you want to do it only if you absolutely have to, because it could hurt people you know.  That lies at the core of reporting.

Worse are understandable internal rationalizations you go through. You pit theoretical "maybe this will never come to light" versus actual "if I report, this gets brought into the daylight." It is a very difficult place to be.

As you can imagine, given what I do for a living (teach ethics and consult with lawyers about ethics!) my angst was not calmed that greatly by the fact that the person withdrew the arguably tainted document.  I felt that this probably eliminated any duty to report (which I had grave questions existed anyway), but I wanted to be sure.  Even though I would have felt comfortable advising another lawyer in somewhat similar circumstances (well, if it had involved patents, and this did not), I needed to be sure, and so I later consulted with a lawyer... and there, of course, that part of the story necessarily ends.

The point of my story?  To share it.