Local Government Attorneys

In my last post, I dealt with the many arguments against application of the attorney-client privilege in the context of an inspector general, or ethics commission, investigation of official misconduct. One thing I did not do was respond to the general argument in favor of attorney-client privilege.

Is the attorney-client privilege, in the context of an inspector general's (or, for that a matter, an ethics commission's) investigation of misconduct in city government, "sacred," as Chicago's corporation counsel insists? Is it even appropriate?

This is a long post that will be fascinating to many, will raise hackles in some, but will be of less interest to others. If you want to cut to the chase, read the summary paragraph at the end and move on.

When there is no formal process for dealing with a council member's conflict of interest, and the council handles the matter itself, things can get farcical. This is what is happening in Bellevue, WA. This wealthy suburb of Seattle, with a population of 120,000, has an ethics code for employees, but with no independent enforcement. Its ethics code for elected officials is just the state's limited provisions, again...

Although we have more trouble seeing our own unethical behavior than we do seeing others' unethical behavior, Max H. Bazerman and Ann E. Tenbrunsel, the authors of the new book Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What's Right and What to Do about It, have found that people have a tendency "to overlook the unethical behavior of others when it is not in their best interest to notice the infraction." They...

Although it is not a book about government ethics, Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What's Right and What to Do about It by Max H. Bazerman and Ann E. Tenbrunsel (Princeton University Press) is a must-read book for government ethics practitioners. This new book (it came out just a couple of weeks ago) incorporates a great deal of research in behavioral ethics to look (1) at what is going on in the...

How important is ethics training? According to Justice Ginsburg's dissent in Connick v. Thompson, a 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 29, it is the difference between life and death.