Ted Frank: Prosecutor, Judge, and Jury
Note how even though this attorney has "faced no disciplinary consequences, much less criminal ones," Ted has no problem calling him and the acquitted attorney in the story a criminal.
And welcome readers of the Lexington Herald-Leader, which says, “Legal blogs and Web sites such as www.overlawyered.com have used the case to attack the legal profession as a whole.” (Brandon Ortiz and Art Jester, “Jury still out on legal profession”, Jul.2). Of course, the Kentucky bar has done a perfectly good job of demonstrating itself worthy of attack for simply suspending attorneys that stole tens of millions of dollars from clients. And Stan Chesley has faced no disciplinary consequences, much less criminal ones, for his role in the fraud, demonstrating the failure of legal disciplinary authorities to address the systematic problem of fraud in the plaintiffs’ bar. When crime pays, one is justified in noting the problem of criminal behavior. (Emphasis added.)
Surely he won't mind then if I call Merck executives criminals for hiding data about Vioxx from the FDA, or Bayer executives criminals for hiding information about Trasylol from the FDA. Or is he the only person who gets to decide what is and isn't a crime?