Comment Her "bias" is too remote to matter (Score 1) 39
It's fine for her not to recuse herself. Assuming her husband doesn't work on the DoubleClick matter, or is walled from it, the actual chance of a conflict of interest is remote.*
You'd basically have to argue that Jones Day (which earns money from billing time, not from the value of the transaction) would profit as a whole from the merger, and her husband, as a partner, would then earn some amount from the increased partnership pool, benefiting her in some way. This would presumably incentivize her to approve the merger.
This is an extremely tenuous argument - law firm partnership profits are so diluted that her benefit, if any, would be marginal; plus, in terms of profits, Jones Day is agnostic as to the merger being approved (and probably makes more money the longer it takes). I don't recall the law off the top of my head, but I think even a federal judge is perfectly within his discretion to deny recusal in a circumstance like this, where the perceived financial interest is so remote that bias concerns weaken.
The other argument is that because her husband is a partner at Jones Day and she was an associate there, she wants all of their clients to succeed. That's just plain wrong for a lot of lawyers - firms take on clients all the time that most associates/partners don't care about or even are personally hostile towards.
I assume that the FTC or the APA (Administrative Procedure Act) have provisions that cover recusal, but I don't know them.
I don't blame her for refusing to recuse herself. This smacks of a lot of people who are against the merger looking for a technicality to cast doubt on any positive resolution. Any actual appearance of bias is weak.
*Note, if her husband actually is working on the merger or has worked with DoubleClick as a client in the past, or if she has, the whole analysis changes and she should probably recuse herself.
You'd basically have to argue that Jones Day (which earns money from billing time, not from the value of the transaction) would profit as a whole from the merger, and her husband, as a partner, would then earn some amount from the increased partnership pool, benefiting her in some way. This would presumably incentivize her to approve the merger.
This is an extremely tenuous argument - law firm partnership profits are so diluted that her benefit, if any, would be marginal; plus, in terms of profits, Jones Day is agnostic as to the merger being approved (and probably makes more money the longer it takes). I don't recall the law off the top of my head, but I think even a federal judge is perfectly within his discretion to deny recusal in a circumstance like this, where the perceived financial interest is so remote that bias concerns weaken.
The other argument is that because her husband is a partner at Jones Day and she was an associate there, she wants all of their clients to succeed. That's just plain wrong for a lot of lawyers - firms take on clients all the time that most associates/partners don't care about or even are personally hostile towards.
I assume that the FTC or the APA (Administrative Procedure Act) have provisions that cover recusal, but I don't know them.
I don't blame her for refusing to recuse herself. This smacks of a lot of people who are against the merger looking for a technicality to cast doubt on any positive resolution. Any actual appearance of bias is weak.
*Note, if her husband actually is working on the merger or has worked with DoubleClick as a client in the past, or if she has, the whole analysis changes and she should probably recuse herself.
