Certain aspects of commentary and public reports, swirling around the public discourse of ethics issues concerning the New York Attorney General’s nine-year prosecution of Maurice R. Greenberg and Howard I. Smith, strike me as very troubling. (See, “Government Still Pursuing Greenberg Case 9 Years Later,” NYLJ, Feb. 18, 2014; ‘Ethics’ Tactic Only Seeks to Intimidate Public Officials, NYLJ, Letter to Editor, Dec. 23, 2013; “Bellacosa Attacks A.G. for Comments in Greenberg Fraud Case,” NYLJ. Dec. 13, 2013.)
Repeatedly over the last few months, some reputable private individuals and certain state employees have propounded, by implicit suggestions and explicit assertions, that pervasive ethical allegations and concerns registered in formal complaints to a public body charged with responsibility for same are: (a) “distractions”; (b) “premature”; (c) “wrongly venued”; (d) “beside the point”; (e) strategically media driven; or (f) all of the above, encapsulated by a variety of rhetorical mischaracterizations, like “harassment” and “usurpation.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
