Michael Schiavo lawyer on board of directors of Terri’s hospice

CFP ^ | March 25, 2005 | Judi McLeod

[MEGoody]

"What you described is not a conflict of interest. His representation of MS was not compromised by his being on the board, and vice versa."

The company I work for (and probably most in the nation) would fire an employee for having less of a conflict than this.

Please give a scenario (not necessarily related to the Schiavo case) that best defines 'conflict of interest' in your view. At this point, it seems that your view of it is different from the norm.

[gathersnomoss]

Too late. BTW, lets not forget to keep the feeding tubes in the dolphin's. Welcome to the Parallel Universe.

[Modernman]

Please give a scenario (not necessarily related to the Schiavo case) that best defines 'conflict of interest' in your view. At this point, it seems that your view of it is different from the norm.

If Felos was representing MS while also representing a pro-life group involved in the dispute. Or, a situation where Felos' own interests ran counter to that of his client.

In any event, the only person who should be concerned with a conflict of interest here is MS. Felos was his attorney, after all.

[MEGoody]

Okay, I see were the disagreement is. You view it only as a conflict of interest if it affects his desire to properly represent Michael Schiavo. I can see where you could hold that view.

I was coming from 'conflict of interest' being something that could cause (or tempt) an individual to do something illegal or unethical (e.g. pressure the hospice to do what it could to make Terri appear as unresponsive as possible) in order to gain personally. This is the definition I am used to from the business world.

[Dante3]

And when DeLay wants an investigation, he is suddenly attack, there are demands for his resignation, by even groups who came out in defense of Clinton remaining in office after he was dividing the country.