Sandusky and Penn State: Where were the lawyers?
Saturday, November 12, 2011 by Underdog Lawyer
One of the prime targets for public ridicule is lawyers along with umpires, politicians etc. A good quote about us is you complain about lawyers until you need one.
So what does that have to do with what is going on at Penn State? There couldn’t be many who have not heard or read about the horrific acts alleged against former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky with minors. Some are also shocked about how this matter was handled by Penn State.
One incident reportedly occurred on the main campus in a locker room in 2002, and was witnessed by a Penn State grad assistant who reported it to Joe Paterno the next day. Within one week it was reported to the Penn State Athletic Director and a Vice President. There may be some issue as to exactly what was reported, but no one appears to contest that at the very least it was reported that a 55 year old man was in the shower with a 10 year old boy.
Most of us react as parents, but as lawyers, we have another unique perspective on this tragedy. Our firm represents institutions which provide services to children. At times our clients have received information (not eyewitness testimony though- usually just unverified hearsay) about alleged improper conduct with minors- many times the reports turn out to be unfounded. Regardless of the believability of the complaint, we recommend certain initial actions be taken, but more about that later.
Based on our experience, it is hard to believe Penn State didn’t immediately contact its attorney after the Athletic Director and Vice President received notice of the shower incident. The role of Penn State’s counsel in this case, who most likely is experienced and obviously connected to Penn State, is to provide common sense, objective legal advice. To do so the client (Penn State) must 1) ask for the lawyer’s advice; 2) tell the lawyer all the facts; and 3) listen to the advice.
Assuming this was done, the lawyer’s advice to Penn State upon hearing of the 2002 incident (a 55 year old man in the locker room shower with a kid is all anyone needed to hear) should have been clear: 1) immediately separate the adult from minors @ Penn State and all Penn State facilities until further notice; 2) report it to the proper authorities and parents, and cooperate in any law enforcement investigation; 3) once the investigation is complete, determine if the University needs to conduct its own investigation; 4) based on the investigation then and only then determine if 1) above should be reconsidered. It doesn’t appear from the Grand Jury report that Penn State did any of the above.
One doesn’t need any direction from the Supreme Court or a law degree from an Ivy League school to know what to advise in this situation. It is primarily a matter of common sense. However, sometimes a client doesn’t listen to its lawyer, which might be the case here. Unfortunately we may never know why Penn State didn’t react accordingly and protect innocent children from any possible future acts.
So what does that have to do with what is going on at Penn State? There couldn’t be many who have not heard or read about the horrific acts alleged against former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky with minors. Some are also shocked about how this matter was handled by Penn State.
One incident reportedly occurred on the main campus in a locker room in 2002, and was witnessed by a Penn State grad assistant who reported it to Joe Paterno the next day. Within one week it was reported to the Penn State Athletic Director and a Vice President. There may be some issue as to exactly what was reported, but no one appears to contest that at the very least it was reported that a 55 year old man was in the shower with a 10 year old boy.
Most of us react as parents, but as lawyers, we have another unique perspective on this tragedy. Our firm represents institutions which provide services to children. At times our clients have received information (not eyewitness testimony though- usually just unverified hearsay) about alleged improper conduct with minors- many times the reports turn out to be unfounded. Regardless of the believability of the complaint, we recommend certain initial actions be taken, but more about that later.
Based on our experience, it is hard to believe Penn State didn’t immediately contact its attorney after the Athletic Director and Vice President received notice of the shower incident. The role of Penn State’s counsel in this case, who most likely is experienced and obviously connected to Penn State, is to provide common sense, objective legal advice. To do so the client (Penn State) must 1) ask for the lawyer’s advice; 2) tell the lawyer all the facts; and 3) listen to the advice.
Assuming this was done, the lawyer’s advice to Penn State upon hearing of the 2002 incident (a 55 year old man in the locker room shower with a kid is all anyone needed to hear) should have been clear: 1) immediately separate the adult from minors @ Penn State and all Penn State facilities until further notice; 2) report it to the proper authorities and parents, and cooperate in any law enforcement investigation; 3) once the investigation is complete, determine if the University needs to conduct its own investigation; 4) based on the investigation then and only then determine if 1) above should be reconsidered. It doesn’t appear from the Grand Jury report that Penn State did any of the above.
One doesn’t need any direction from the Supreme Court or a law degree from an Ivy League school to know what to advise in this situation. It is primarily a matter of common sense. However, sometimes a client doesn’t listen to its lawyer, which might be the case here. Unfortunately we may never know why Penn State didn’t react accordingly and protect innocent children from any possible future acts.