January 19, 2004
Solving those nasty ethical problems.
Over at Wampum, Dwight Meredith suggests a couple of ethical questions that should get answered in The Ethicist column in the NY Times Magazine:
Dear Ethicist:
I am a judge in the Federal system. I am also an avid hunter. I have the opportunity to go duck hunting in Louisiana with a group of friends. One of the friends is a very high profile government official. It is fair to say that without me, my friend would not have his current job.
My friend also happens to the defendant in a law suit. That suit also happens to be on my docket.
If I go on the hunting trip, my friend may have the opportunity to talk to me about the case without the other party being present. I find such discussions to be invaluable because they are not inhibited by the rules of evidence, the legal record or other technicalities. My friend and I can talk openly and freely on a hunting trip whereas in the courtroom, far too many people are listening, lawyers do all the talking and everything gets taken down by a court reporter.
Some people seem to think that going on the hunting trip creates the appearance of favoritism. The discussions we will have on the trip will not make any difference in my decision because I decided to rule in favor of my friend long before the case reached my court and long before the hunting trip was even planned. Can I ethically go on the hunting trip?
Sincerely,
Fat Tony, Washington D.C.
Posted by Magpie at January 19, 2004 03:37 PM | TrackBack