Spectator

Mark Kipnis is competent 99 per cent of the time

Posted on March 20, 2008 by Douglas Bell


The top story on law.com today reprises the strange case of Mark Kipnis, former Hollinger International corporate counsel and, pending appeal, convicted felon. Kipnis—who benefited not at all from the scheme that paid out millions to his bosses—was convicted essentially of negligence. In pleading to stay out of jail (successfully, it turns out), Kipnis admitted that “ninety-nine per cent of my time, Judge, I believe I was competent. I believe I did do a good job. It was that one per cent—the compliance aspect—that should have taken much more of my time. I admit…I did not fully understand the magnitude of those responsibilities.”

Ignorance of the law, as the article points out, while affording mitigation, offers no defence. Both Julie Ruder and Eric Sussman sat for on-the-record interviews and their take is clear:

“All of us have choices,” says prosecutor Julie Ruder, sitting in a conference room in the downtown Chicago federal building where the trial was held. “None of this would have happened,” Ruder says, referring to the fraud, “if Mark Kipnis had made different choices.” Sitting next to her is Eric Sussman, another member of the four-attorney prosecution team. “All Mark Kipnis had to do,” he says, picking up the thread, “was say, ‘No, I don’t feel comfortable with this. I’m not doing it.’” He doesn’t think in-house lawyers are at greater risk these days, Sussman adds, but he has seen one change: “There’s more awareness that you have to take your fiduciary duty seriously and protect the shareholders.”

Need more proof? Just ask Peter Atkinson.

• The Trial of St. Mark [Law.com]

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

You must register to post comments. Please register here.

GravityLevity2 March 20, 2008 at 4:46 p.m.

very interesting article, and not just on Kipnis, but in general on the non-competes at Hollinger.

as to Kipnis gaining or not gaining anything, he kept his job: from the article: "His predecessor in the job, Kenneth Serota, had once been a partner at Holleb & Coff. When Serota decided to leave in 1997, management asked him to find a successor, and he called Kipnis. Though Kipnis hadn't been looking for a change, he found the opportunity attractive. The appeal was simple, says defense lawyer Patricia Brown Holmes of Schiff Hardin: "It was something new." While his base salary matched his draw at Holleb & Coff, there was the prospect of more -- which doesn't hurt when you have four kids going to college"

The article later makes clear that soon after Kipnis took on the job, Radler gave him a demonstration of how ready Radler was to fire Hollinger counsel.

leaf March 20, 2008 at 6:26 p.m.

“ in my country, blah blah blah

in finland blah blah blah

women in finland blah blah blah

tires in finland blah blah blah

retirement age in finland blah blah blah

public transport in finland blah blah blah

women in government in my country, blah blah blah

in finland, the media has not reported any pedophilia activity and blah blah blah

in finland, there is an opera house and
blah blah blah

there are 4 seasons in finland blah blah blah

there are saunas in finland blah blah blah

from finland, a ticket to bora bora costs blah blah blah

computers are so cheap in finland so i have extra ones just in case blah blah blah

men in my country blah blah blah

inflatable dolls are very inexpensive in finland so blah blah blah

there are Elite restaurants in finland but you need to pay with your own money and blah blah blah

the Helsinki police is a fine police blah blah blah

there are clouds and sun in the sky in my country blah blah blah

there is water in the baltic sea in finland blah blah blah

would you like to know more about my country?
Please call me at” : HA HA HA

Barbara_in_BC March 20, 2008 at 6:41 p.m.

leaf spam

jade_lee March 20, 2008 at 7:57 p.m.

LOL Barb_in_BC

jade_lee March 20, 2008 at 7:58 p.m.

BTW Fintan, thanks for telling us about Finland.

jade_lee March 20, 2008 at 8:02 p.m.

Blah Blah to Kipnis, Frumm and the Luv Guv, these people are insignificant to most, their 15 minutes of fame is over.

Fintan March 21, 2008 at 2:34 a.m.

Poor lit/leaf: must have realised by now that the nuisance call stunt has no effect and is reduced to the childish babble we see above. The HAS TO be a story behind that pathetic character. And the hypersensitivity to male rape is a clue. Someone, someone trusted, someone close treated the poor thing very badly and left a twisted thing behind.

What a lovely Easter! The sun is shining in a blue sky here, the city is almost silent - and across the Atlantic His Lardship is where he belongs and where he'll be for the next 5½ years at least: in his new post as a Privy Cleaner at the Coleman Pound Your Arse Institution for the Morally and Ethically Challenged.

P.s. I feel sorry for Mark Kipnis. Put him down as another of His Lardship's victims.

Lit_200 March 21, 2008 at 7:59 a.m.

This is an excellent article.

I find it interesting that the two holdouts on the jury found it difficult to see "criminal intent" in any of the actions. And, in fact, they did their best to prevent the trial and convictions from being more of a travesty than they, in fact, turned out to be.

ValC March 21, 2008 at 12:49 p.m.

Lit

2 of 12 did not see criminal intent. Doesn't that mean 10 of 12 DID see criminal intent?

Of course being in a majority (or minority for that matter) does not necessarily equate with being right (I mean correct, not right politically). But I think that proportion, 2 of 12, is roughly equivalent with public opinion. Didn't someone on a previous thread mention that 20% of Canadians think CB was wrongfully convicted?

Lit_200 March 21, 2008 at 8:40 p.m.

The point is, the power of two.

Post a comment

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment: