Ethics

Thanks to Andy for inviting me to join the merry band at LEF.  I've been a regular blogger over at Mirror of Justice for several years, so forgive me if I lapse into discussions of Catholic legal theory from time to time.  Also, for longtime readers, you might remember me from the LEF interview series from back in the early days.  (Indeed, my interview may have convinced folks that the series idea was so ill-conceived as to compel its immediate end.)

What caught my attention today are reports of the lawsuit-spawning kerfuffle at the Kasowitz firm surrounding the firing of a partner for his (apparently consensual) post-drinking make-out session with an associate.  Evidently he was fired on the spot by the managing partner, Marc Kasowitz.  No committee vote, no procedure, no airing of grievances.  The quote that jumped out was from Leslie Corwin, a partnership law expert, who says that many firms allow a managing partner to fire other partners: ?I believe in benevolent despots running law firms,? Corwin says. ?I do, I do. But the key to the whole thing is the partnership agreement and what?s agreed to. That?s the key.?

In light of recent discussions (prompted in part by Andy's excellent paper) on social psychology, is part of the problem of lawyers behaving badly the prevalence of benevolent despots?  Would a dispersal of authority and an expansion of due process make the dangers of our tendency to comply with unethical demands any less pressing in the law firm context?  Put differently, if the subjects in Stanley Milgram's experiments were told that Milgram operated under the authority of an independent review board, would the results have been less depressing?