"Sandusky child rape scandal at Penn State could have been avoided if university had proper legal counsel on compliance issues"

David Mackey, at MassLive.com has an interesting take on the Penn State scandal. (h/t: Faculty Lounge)

Also, at CentreDaily:

Three top Penn State University administrators were each posed a question from prosecutors when they testified separately last year before the grand jury investigating Jerry Sandusky:

Do you have counsel with you today?

Then-university president Graham B. Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley, and vice president Gary Schultz each offered the same answer: Yes, Cynthia Baldwin, the university’s general counsel.

But Baldwin has since maintained that she represented none of them and instead sat in on the proceedings on behalf of the university.

Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/27/3274899/baldwins-role-in-scandal-questioned.html#storylink=cpy

Comments

[Rick Underwood]

My experience with University lawyers is not good. Most of them are not qualified for their positions. They push around faculty and staff and act like they are personal counsel for the Presient. If you are on a faculty committee and need guidance, they won't give you a written opinion when you need one, because they want to reserve the right to throw you under the bus later. They run up the bill hiring outside counsel unnecessarily. What is amusing in your post is that administrators said publicly that this person was their counsel. She was present? Did she hear what they said and remain silent? Seems like she should have said something at the time.

The fact is that university administrators and their counsel are not held accountable to anyone. Penn State is what you get as a result.

[Rick Underwood]

Larry Rosenthal's comment at the Faculty Lounge is right on! It does not matter what you call the lawyer (inside or outside) if the are not truly serving the inteerst of the entity.

[Rick Underwood]

I am confused. If this was grand jury testimony, would she have been in the room? Presumably not? But she said she sat in on the proceedings? Anyway, I am not sure it makes any difference, but the reporting is confusing to me.

[Doug Richmond]

People who are set to testify before a grand jury need experienced criminal lawyers, which Ms. Baldwin was not. They need separate counsel, which Ms. Baldwin was not. And no one apparently considred the possibility that the Freeh investigation would uncover e-mail messages and personal notes that would seemingly contradict the grand jury testimony of Messrs. Curley, Schultz, and Spanier.

[Rick Underwood]

Thanks Doug.

I would like to add a course on Grand Jury Practice (advising/strategy) and maybe our White Collar Crime Person does some of this. I got interested because of my interest in Perjury Law. In any event, you know from our discussions of the law school curriculum that it's not gonna happen.