Ted,

it’s certainly an arguable point. There is no one more annoyed than myself that I ever listened to them. I think it is prudent to lawyer up in some situations but it is not something we do in life as a rule. Most people would see it as wise when dealing with the cops, fewer when dealing with educational institutions. Then with the reputation you lawyers have we would need a lawyer before meeting lawyers!!!

We certainly had two great lawyers in the US.

I’ve never suggested that BC didn’t give you bad advice. My argument has been that it was unreasonable to accept the advice at face value. What a great example of the value of lawyers! The story might have had a happier ending if everyone had had his or her own legal advice at the outset.

Ted,

I know we do not agree on this but I have never felt you joined the dots needed to give your argument the persuasive weight on this matter. As you stated in an earlier piece nobody is going to buy the BC line that it let researchers draw up a contract that bound the university. I think we took that round of the fight comfortably. True, we were aided by Jack Dunn who didn’t seem to know the difference between a contract and a con trick.

You bet. I also encourage readers to read the piece you recently published at The Pensive Quill, though as you know I think the blame for the mistake of law about confidentiality is shared by BC, you and Ed Moloney, and the participants, and does not belong to BC alone, as your piece argues.

thanks for the space. Much appreciated

Anthony