The Brett Favre Scandal

               Journalist A.J. Daulerio and the website Deadspin.com recently broke the salacious story about Brett Favre and New York Jets employee, Jenn Sterger. The story about the long time football star was headline news. Part of what made the story a scandal was the lack of confirmation from deadspin.com that pictures and texts used in print  were actually from Brett Favre. 

In this scandal it was hard to tell who the bad guy really was. Even if all the allegations were true, A.J. Daulerio and his lack of journalistic integrity could outshine Favre for being most unprofessional. A.J. Daulerio even told CNN that there were “two scum-bags in this story,” referring to himself and Farve, and that he was okay with that characterization.

What makes Daulerio a bad guy is that Sterger had made it clear that she had no intention of going public with the story. Daulerio tried applying heavy pressure on her to expose Farve and she refused. Despite his source not wanting to be exposed, Daulerio went public anyway, ignoring all professional standards on how to treat sources.

There are some important parallels between journalistic integrity and the practice of law. Integrity is defined as adherence to moral and ethical principles, soundness of moral character and  honesty.   Daulerio threw away all his creditability just to get national media attention about a particular story.

 It may be tempting for lawyers, at times,  to make controversial statements about a case or the law just to get attention, but the attention may not be helpful to the client’s cause or to the lawyer’s reputation. That’s not to say that lawyers cannot or should not speak to the press. At times, they may not have a choice; for instance if inaccurate information about a case is printed. Nevertheless, careers should be built on credibility and integrity; and as somebody once said, you only get one reputation.

 

   

Personal And Financial Responsibility In Business

Former Washington Mutual (WaMu) CEO Kerry Killinger doesn't understand the concept of personal and financial responsibility. He told lawmakers in Washington this week that the reason Wamu went under (the largest bank failure in U.S. history) was because the Fed, Treasury, and D.C lawmakers decided not to save his bank, yet chose to save other banks.

Specifically Killinger said, "for those that were part of the inner circle and were 'too clubby to fail' the benefits were obvious. For those outside the club, the penalty was severe."

Let's be clear here. Wamu made bad decisions on mortgage backed securities, as did other banks. The fate it suffered was due to poor decision making, poor investment decisions, the rose colored glasses syndrome, hubris and greed. CEO Killinger wanted to make Wamu a "supermarket bank" where borrowers of all types could seek loans. That is not a good policy for a bank to have. All businesses must specialize or fail.(Mine included.)

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), chair of the investigations subcommittee has stated:

"WaMu built its conveyor belt of toxic mortgages to feed Wall Street's appetite for mortgage backed securities.To keep the conveyor belt running and feed the securitization machine on Wall Street, Washington Mutual engaged in lending practices that created a mortgage time bomb."

Meanwhile, Mr. Killinger has two homes; one in Palm Desert, California (outside of Palm Springs), and one in a a gated community in Seattle, Washington. While CEO of Washington Mutual in 2007, Killinger earned a total compensation of $14,364,883, which included a base salary of $1,000,000, a cash bonus of $0, stocks granted of $10,120,731, and options granted of $2,846,400. In 2008, the year Washington Mutual ceased to exist and Killinger was fired as CEO, he earned $25.1 million in compensation. Killinger received a $15.3 million severance payment in September 2008 as well as a $445,200 lump-sum payment for vacation benefits and an additional $300,669.He has no problem blaming others for the demise of his bank.

This is a  blog about personal injury law. So what does the Wamu story have to do with that?

All I know is not watching the bottom line is no way to run a business. As a personal injury lawyer, I have to finance each case I take. I don't get paid until the end of the case. That's the essence of the contingency fee agreement I have with every one of my clients. Careful evaluation of each case is required, or I, like Mr. Killinger, could see my law practice go down the tubes. That's why from a philosophical and practical point of view  I only take on meritorious personal injury cases that have a good chance of success. I represent people who have real problems, have suffered real losses and terrible injuries. I have no interest in filing lawsuits on any other type of case. To me, that would be like investing in toxic mortgages. And, to my knowledge, Washington has no plans to come to the aid of the owner of a personal injury practice who didn't pay close attention to the business side of the practice.