Chapter 1
Vignette

  *Questions to consider

1.) Which issue is more disconcerting – the fact that a board member leaked confidential information about the firm or the tactics used to investigate the leak? Defend your position.

*Attorneys should consider the consequences of moving forward with pretexting or other forms of deceitful investigations. First, attorneys that sanction the use of pretexting during investigations can likely be subject to professional discipline-potentially including disbarment-if they are governed by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

In addition, investigations can lose the protection of the attorney-client privilege. Often one of the main advantages to having counsel lead an investigation is to shield the investigation with the attorney-client privilege. In the H-P scandal, for example, Hunsaker was asked to head the investigation "in order to protect the attorney-client privilege in the event there is litigation or a governmental inquiry of some sort."  The use of pretexting in investigations may threaten the privilege, however, because of the crime-fraud exception.

2.) Can the use of pretexting to gain information ever be justified? Is it considered legal under any circumstances?

*While pretexting for phone records is now a federal offense, it was not so clear when the H-P scandal transpired. Additionally, pretexting is a continuing issue, beyond phone records. The H-P scandal, therefore, is a reminder to lawyers that "conduct that is legal may not be ethical." The profession's honor requires that "truthfulness, honesty and candor are the core values of the legal profession." The use of pretexting in corporate investigations headed by an attorney may likely violate an attorney's duty of honesty and supervision and may lead to professional discipline. Moreover, the use of pretexting may vitiate the attorney-client protection. Thus, when examined closely, the truth behind pretexting becomes clear-it just isn't worth it.

Cases Study 

Is there a place for Ethics in IT?

1.)  Discuss how a CIO might handle Schrage’s scenarios using the suggested process for ethical decision making presented in this chapter.

*In schrage’s scenarios he was suggesting a non-ethical way of managing a company, his reasons because behavior interferes with business efficiency so he giving a scenario of a company without engaging Ethics in a certain company. Because it didn’t matter anymore how their staffs working so hard just to serve right to their company but they didn’t pay back to them.

2.)  Discuss the possible short – term losses and long – term gains in implementing ethical solutions for each of Schrage’s scenarios.

*The possible long-term gains in implementing ethical solutions was many would admire on you in the way you manage your company, and your company would be working in a positive way.

3.)   Must businesses choose between good ethics and financial benefits?  Explain your answer using Schrage’s scenarios as examples.

*To make my explanation short For me it’s a big No, Businesses must not just choose among good Ethics and Financial benefits. A business should exercise both good ethics and financial benefits. So staffs in their company should really pay back by serving the company in right way just because they also have concerns to their staffs.