When White House counsel learned about the whistleblower’s complaint did they have an ethical duty to distance themselves from POTUS? Or did they have a responsibility to the President (their client) to help mitigate any adverse implications to him, thereby justifying their attempt to cover up Trumps conversation with Ukraine?
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/26/white-house-lawyers-trump-ukraine-scandal-004146
I forgot to leave my name in the post above.
– Melissa
If the White House was a company, the taxpayers would be the share-holders, Trump would be the CEO *cringe*, and CipolIone would be the In-House council. In this scenario, it becomes apparent that Cipollone has an ethical duty to the share-holders (tax-payers) and that would mean not allowing any misdeeds to occur under his role as general council and executing matters promptly as soon as it comes to his attention.
However, I am on the fence about the whole issue on how Cipollone and the other lawyers delayed bringing up the whistleblower’s complaint to Congress. One can see it as a breach in ethical duty a lawyer has towards his shareholders (aka the country/the taxpayers) but, one can argue and see it as a strategy.
We see strategy used all the time in many areas of the law, specifically in family law where a divorce attorney’s clients somehow-mysteriously-knows how to use all these strategies to delay their spouse’s proceedings; such as strategically “Conflicting out” all the top divorce lawyers in that city so your partner legally cannot use those top lawyers.
One can only wonder who gives out these “strategies” … *cough* lawyers do! *cough*… Is it shady? Yes. Is it illegal to be shady? I do not know!
So the real question is: Is an In-House council’s use of strategy a breach of their ethical duty to the shareholders.. I think some use of strategy can allow an In-House council to balance on the fine line between doing what’s best for the company (aka the Country) and the shareholders.. Especially if they truly believe that the CEO (Trump) maintaining their status as CEO (President) is truly something that is the best interest for the company (the country/taxpayers)…
Awesome article Melissa!