The discussion began last week when the New York Times ethicist, Randy Cohen, ran the following question in his column:
I am a lawyer. During a first date with another lawyer, we had sex, and I wore a condom. Days later, when I came down with a bad fever and couldnít determine the cause, she revealed that she had genital herpes. A judgeship will soon open up in her county, and sheís a near lock for it. But if I report her lapse of sexual ethics, I doubt that the selection committee will pick her. Should I? ó NAME WITHHELD
Cohen replied as follows:
You should not. No doubt your paramour acted dreadfully. She should have told you that she had herpes and let you decide whether you wished to accept that risk. But the selection committee is not choosing a role model for the kids or someone to ride the express elevator to heaven; it seeks a person who will excel at a particular job. I do not believe that this sort of sexual misconduct correlates with an inability to be a good judge. [. . .]
Some private conduct does bespeak an inability to do a job. A would-be jurist who belonged to the Klan or even one who regularly used racist slurs would not inspire confidence in his or her ability to dispense equal justice to all. You should come forward with relevant information like that. But being unscrupulous in bed does not presage being inept on the bench, and so you should keep this demoralizing episode to yourself. And your doctor.
So, then Peter Lattman over at the WSJ Law Blog ran a post on Cohen’s column and all hell broke loose in the comment section to Lattman’s post. A few choice ones:
“Who cares! Sue the condom maker!”
“Great question! I am posing it to my Professional Responsibility students immediately. Thanks for the help.”
“Leave it up to bunch of lawyers to discuss medicine. Totally absurd. The law profession is essentially an STD of society, recurring pain and not curable. As far as I am concerned, this is medically inaccurate and you all deserve the real disease.”
I look at it differently. Why should she be rewarded with a judgeship when there are many other lawyers of equal (or better) legal ability/experience who have behaved themselves?
What benefit is there for society, or in this case, the selection committee, to say it’s no big deal if one conducts oneself in a reprehensible manner? Whether it’s athletes whose off-field behavior we overlook, or politicians whose extracurricular behavior leaves much to be desired, we aren’t doing ourselves any good when we reward them with our continued loyalty and support.
So yes, bounce her from the list. Bounce her as a partner of her firm. It’s not so much that we want to punish her, it’s that we want to reward those who behave.
I agree that other more responsible people whould be rewarded, but what does “behave” mean? Would she have behaved by divulging her health problem or by not engaging in sex on a first date? I’m not trying to pick a fight, I’ve just heard that sentiment when reading about this story in a couple of places before and I’m curious about it here.