Law Commons^™

Authoritarian Legal Ethics: Bradley Wendel And The Positivist Turn, William H. Simon

Faculty Scholarship

In this Review, I respond to the authoritarian theme in Lawyers and Fidelity to Law. In essence, I argue: neither libertarianism nor authoritarianism is a plausible starting point for a general approach to legal ethics. It is a great virtue of Ronald Dworkin’s jurisprudence that it suggests a conception of law and legal ethics that does not depend on either perspective. Moreover, it suggests a conception of lawyer responsibility that is more plausible than either Emersonianism or moralistic positivism. By gesturing toward positivism and by surrendering to less reflective authoritarian impulses, Wendel’s argument underestimates the extent to which social …

Can Lawyers Wear Blinders? Gatekeepers And Third-Party Opinions, John C. Coffee Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

The question in the title may seem to answer itself. But it does not; indeed, the question has been framed to explain my difficulty with Professor Schwarcz's position on third-party opinions. Frankly, Steven Schwarcz has taken a bold, tough position. Addressing what he sees as issues of "first impression," he asks "what it means for lawyers to issue legal opinions that create negative externalities," and "[i]f lawyers issuing legal opinions owe a duty to the public as well as to the opinion recipient." These are large, possibly even imponderable questions, but he answers them crisply and succinctly in the manner …

Earnings Management As A Professional Responsibility Problem, William H. Simon

Faculty Scholarship

Not infrequently, managers of public companies propose to do things – rearrange their operations, restructure assets and liabilities, sell and buy property – solely for the purpose of achieving accounting effects they desire. Most often they want an increase in current reported earnings per share, though sometimes they prefer a current decrease in the earnings they would otherwise report when it will allow them to show a smoothly increasing pattern of earnings in the future.

Sometimes the desired effects require outright lying or violations of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), in which cases the maneuvers are plainly illegal. But even …