Legal counsel is about risk mitigation: do we fire this person?
The question isn’t whether it’s moral or ethical. It’s what the risk exposure? What are the likely outcomes? Do we have our bases covered?
Fire them! (Or, we can’t, it overexposes us, create a new department, assign them and then dissolve the department some time later and declare them redundant).
The law has a few concrete, definitive truths but a huge volume of interpreted and subjective (and contradictory) statutes as well. Otherwise we wouldn't need lawyers in the first place
Exactly this! If the outcome for every case could be known in advance algorithmically or something we wouldn't have lawyers. Since the law is written by people and interpreted by people, it remains blurry when you zoom in close enough to specific unsettled cases.
> When counsel tell you something is legal, and it isn't, there's little subjectivity.
Stating that a thing is or is not legal is making a claim about the opinion other humans in positions of authority (whose specific identity is unknown) will have on a similar question in the future.
There is always subjectivity in it, since you are literally predicting someone else's subjective opinion. The objectivity of law is a conceit, not a reality.
But that’s not entirely a bad thing. It allows for things to change over time. It allows for example for states to crack down on vaccine exemptions and allows for taxation and regulation of interstate commerce, etc.
The question isn’t whether it’s moral or ethical. It’s what the risk exposure? What are the likely outcomes? Do we have our bases covered?
Fire them! (Or, we can’t, it overexposes us, create a new department, assign them and then dissolve the department some time later and declare them redundant).