On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)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.