Talk:William H. Simon

Untitled

Professor Simon holds two chairs at one of the top law schools in the U.S. In light of the pervasive corruption found in the U.S. today, Simon's public opposition is notable. The only correct point in the request for speedy deletion is the article is about a person. However, this person is certainly notable.

• The National Law Journal had an article on November 26, 2007 describing Simon as "prominent":

Columbia's Simon Blasts Professors' Role in Nextel Bias Case[1] "A prominent Columbia Law School professor has leveled fierce criticism against a group of fellow scholars in an article set for publication in Stanford Law Review.

Professor William Simon contends that professors from other law schools gave highly questionable legal advice to the detriment of some 587 plaintiffs suing Nextel Corp. for racial bias."

• The ABA journal summarizes Simon's paper as

"Columbia Law School professor William Simon contends in an article that law professors are part of a “vast enterprise” that provides legal opinions shielding those who hire them." [2]

• The following discussion (emphasis added) is a legal ethics blog written by a professor, but it speaks to the notability of Simon's unique position:

This is not my field at all, but it seems to me that this new article by William Simon (Columbia) is bound to generate considerable discussion. Here is Professor Simon's abstract:

Clients demand bad legal advice when legal advice can favorably influence third-party conduct or attitudes even when it is wrong. Lawyers supply bad legal advice most readily when they are substantially immunized from accountability to the people it is intended to influence. Both demand and supply conditions for a flourishing market are in place in several quarters of the legal system. The resulting practices, however, are in tension with basic professional and academic values. I demonstrate these tensions through critiques of the work of academic professional responsibility consultants in such matters as Enron, Lincoln Savings & Loan, and a heretofore undiscussed aggregate litigation settlement. I also suggest reforms to reduce the incentives and pressures for bad advice that now prevail.

And here is how one of my colleagues summarized the import of the piece:

I bring to your attention an article written by Bill Simon, published at SSRN, that meticulously analyzes ethics opinions written by Geoffrey Hazard [emeritus, Yale; now UC Hastings], Charles Wolfram [emeritus, Cornell], Roy Simon [Hofstra], and Bruce Green [Fordham] and concludes that these opinions are clearly wrong on the law. Bill concludes that these experts “played important roles as enablers of pernicious practices.” He chronicles an alliance of underground practices between litigators and their academic consultants “designed to immunize each other from accountability.” The ethics opinions are included in an appendix.[3]

Without a doubt, the bold work of Simon is "uncomfortable" for certain law academics and their clients in the private practise of law. However, this adversarial circumstance only highlights Prof. Simon's notability. Please engage in further discussion if deletion of the page is still sought. --Knowsetfree (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)