Ethics

Even though I feel that we discussed this new article by Andy Perlman, I couldn't find a post devoted solely to it, and notice of the article just hit the SSRN email report, so I thought I'd post the link.  Andy and I have discussed his thesis, and I suppose that some readers may not fully agree with the article.  (If you want to see how to have a heated discussion following a provocative post, you should first read this generic example of an incendiary post. (via Instapundit))  The abstract to Andy's article:

Rule 5.2(b) provides that a subordinate attorney should not be disciplined for her conduct as long as she has complied with ?a supervisory lawyer's reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty.? This short essay contends that the rule confers few, if any, tangible benefits and has some potentially significant costs. In particular, the Rule applies in so few cases that it is difficult to construct a suitable hypothetical to which it would apply. And in cases where the Rule might apply, it is hard to see why a subordinate should escape liability for following unethical instructions. Finally, the Rule produces substantial costs by giving subordinate attorneys a justification to defer to authority figures in situations that warrant forceful dissent. With this lopsided cost/benefit analysis, Model Rule 5.2(b) deserves deletion.