Brian Leiter describes the piece as "the Blockbuster legal ethics article of the year." I have not yet read it in full, but from the description, I can see why it is controversial. Professor Simon criticizes several prominent law professors/legal ethics experts and reaches a provocative conclusion:
The academic professional responsibility experts played important roles as enablers of pernicious (and heretofore largely undiscussed) practices. Thus, the case shows the convergence of an underground of litigation practice with an underground of academic practice – practitioners and academics allying under terms designed to immunize each other from accountability.
When I say that the three academics gave “bad legal advice,” I am being provocative. My opinions are different from theirs. However, the value of the case study does not depend on whether I am right about the merits. The important contribution is to show that the form such advice takes and the conditions under which it is given reflect pressures and incentives that undermine confidence in its reliability.
Professor Simon and any of the law professors who are identified in the article have an open invitation to post comments on this blog. After all, this is the legal ethics forum, so it certainly seems appropriate to use this space to engage in a dialog about a controversial article in the field. Contact me here, if you are interested.
For a similar article, see Freedman, Ethical Ends and Ethical Means, 41 Jour. Legal Education 55 (1991)(no link because it's too old).
Posted by: Monroe Freedman | November 10, 2007 at 06:48 PM