On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
Are you really barred from all personal criticism of the Foundation or its members *for a period of three (or more) years following your departure*, merely by being an attorney?
I'm barred from doing so for far longer than three years. Essentially, it's an obligation forever. (There are some exceptions under the legal codes of ethics, but they're very narrow -- e.g., you get to criticize a former client if there's a fee dispute.)
I'll take your word on that.
I would be a very poor lawyer indeed if you, as a client or employer, couldn't trust me not to use your conversations with me against you someday.
There's a huge difference between revealing confidential information about a former client and personally criticizing a director, trustee, or senior officer of that former client.
If I were seeking election to the Board of Trustees, or to any board of any corporation, I would take my responsibilities as a board member seriously, including its fiduciary duties, and including its ethics obligations. I think it is quite possible to be critical in constructive ways about the Foundation and its projects without trying to damage other people. I'm saddened to hear that some people disagree.
I hope you're not implying that I disagree with that statement, because I don't. I too would take my fiduciary duties and my ethics obligations seriously. And I too think it is quite possible to be critical in constructive ways without trying to damage other people. But the way I see it the fiduciary duties and ethics obligations of a board member include the obligation to speak out against certain individuals in certain situations, and therefore I would find it unethical to sign an agreement promising not to speak out should those certain situations arise.