Toronto Life: The Trial of Conrad Black: Black Watch: Today’s Top Stories

The Trial of Conrad Black Toronto Life

Blogs

Black Watch: Today’s Top Stories

Posted on July 31, 2007 by Douglas Bell

While we await what will surely be the last public act of the post-trial period (before sentencing, that is), I offer the following from The Independent as the best summary of the Nixon-Black axis of psychological analogy. Reviewing the bio, Cal McCrystal writes:

“Nixon was not overburdened with scruples, and, even in these pages, alternates between hard boozing and tantrums, and between being ‘perfectly clear’ (his own overused cliché) and being sincerely cynical (in fact as well as in form). But he was far too buttoned-up, even from boyhood, to let whatever principles he had hang out. Despite Conrad Black’s research and opinion, it may be a touch premature to proclaim tout savoir, c’est tout pardonner. Scruples cause one to consider the propriety (or legality) of one’s actions. Those of the author—or the alleged absence of them—have come under judgement by a Chicago jury whose recent verdicts, that he was guilty of fraud and obstruction of justice, have coincided with the publication of this book. In describing the case against him (the result of which he is expected to appeal), as ‘an outrage’, Black displayed a conviction comparable to Richard Nixon’s magnificent televised protest: ‘My fellow Americans, I am not a crook!’ Gainsaying, one must accept, is a constant runnel of history.”

And, from the Department of Repercussions, we have the The Wall Street Journal law blog and BusinessWeek weighing in on the chilling effect of Kipnis’ conviction on corporate counsel everywhere:

“'I think this jury essentially criminalized Mark Kipnis’ negligence for failing to ask questions of his client, and I think it sends a very frightening message to corporate counsel,’ says Hugh Totten, a litigation partner at Perkins Coie in Chicago who observed much of the trial in order to provide commentary to the media."

Wow—imagine criminalizing negligence. I sure hope that trend doesn’t take hold in other professions like, say, airline pilots or doctors. Heaven knows what might happen.

In-House Attorneys, Watch Your Step [BusinessWeek]
Back in Black: Focus on Frey and Kipnis [Wall St. Journal]
Richard Milhouse Nixon: The invincible quest, by Conrad Black [Independent]


Comments

Neither the author nor Toronto Life necessarily agree with the comments posted below. Editors will not correct spelling or grammar. Toronto Life reserves the right to edit or delete comments entirely. Read our full policy

ROGER July 31, 2007 at 6:26 p.m.

A so-so post. I guess it is hard to pass time while waiting for some more juicy bits to chew on.

The jury did not criminalize professional negligence in some novel way. Criminal negligence has always been a concept of law. What Kipnis has been found guilty of was fraud, plain and simple, not as a direct result of being a lawyer, anymore than Boultby has been convicted for being an accountant. The jury, to my knowledge, did not convict him as a lawyer but as an executive management team member engaged in fraud. The lawyer angle is tangential, not the primary angle.

Casanova August 1, 2007 at 5:45 a.m.

Welll... not exactly. Kipnis did not concieve or prepetrate a fraud. The best/worst that can be said is that he allowed something to happen that he should have known was criminally fraudulent.

Unlike airline pilots who have a checklist to follow, corporate lawyers don't. They're told what to do by the executive suite.

The trouble with "should have known" is that many things become clear only in hindsight. In everyday life, we're all told by someone, sooner or later, that "you shudda."

Yes, we shudda but, in fact, we had a hundred other things to think about and our focus was elsewhere.

I concede that flying an aircraft or keeping a big organization out of legal trouble is not everyday life. But I still feel sympathy for Kipnis. He didn't profit from the crimes "he shudda" but didn't identify.

I hope he gets off, or gets a very light sentence, and finds a way to get his life back on track at the age of 60.

REK August 1, 2007 at 12:22 p.m.

That Kipnis is guilty of mail fraud is accurate.

Bets are that he'll be fined and receive a suspended sentence with x hours of public service.

Judge St. Eve has the latitude to delineate between culpabilty levels vis a vis sentences.


Our Pundits Weigh In