On Monday, April 14, 2003, at 07:24 PM, Tom Lord wrote:
>
>
>> From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>
>
>> It's not a conflict of interest if your client has consented
>> (unless it's of the types of conflicts you can't have waived,
>> which, as i said above, are very rare).
>
>> It's that simple.
>
> You're insisting on treating "conflict of interest" as a technical
> term in the law, but that is not it's only meaning.
Which is exactly what should be done in this instance.
You said
"
In such circumstances, in all walks of life, civil society makes the
judgement that "There is a conflict of interset there." We _never_
burden people embraced in such a conflict with the responsibility to
separate out concerns (a) and (b). We _always_ assume that even the
most reasonable, well intentioned persons can not separate out such
interests when they collide in a single mind.
"
Note the qualifications you've added: "in *all* walks of life", "we
_never_ burden", and "we _always_ assume".
I've simply pointed out this simply isn't correct, because there are
multiple walks of life where we do no such thing as the above.
One example i've given is law.
The definition of "conflict of interest" is necessarily dependent on
the particular walk of life you are referring to. In law, it's the
technical term i've described.
This is way off topic, so i'll let it go now.
But please don't make such broad sweeping assertions in the future
without a heck of a lot more factual support. They almost never hold
up.
--Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Apr 15 02:57:02 2003