Legal Compass - The American Opioid Crisis

Legal Compass is a podcast that explores the connection between law and ethics. In this episode, they discuss the American opioid crisis and the role of the legal system. The panel includes a legal ethics professor, a representative from Purdue Pharma, and a class action attorney representing families impacted by OxyContin. They discuss integrity, loyalty, and the harm principle in relation to the crisis. The panelists offer different perspectives and insights on the complex issue. Have you ever had some moral diggity to listen to this podcast and you may compromise? Welcome to Legal Compass, the podcast where we explore the landscape of legal ethics. I'm Emily and I'll be your guide on this journey. In today's complex world, the connections between law and ethics are more critical than ever. Legal Compass is here to navigate through these challenging dilemmas, providing you with insights, solutions and thought-provoking discussions. Each week we bring together a panel of esteemed experts and thought leaders who will shed a light on pressing issues at the link of law and morality. Together we'll dissect well-known cases and unravel the nuances of ethical dilemmas facing the legal profession today. So whether you're an attorney, a law student or just someone interested in the world of legal ethics, Legal Compass is your trusted companion. Hello and welcome, dear listeners, to another episode of Legal Compass. Today we delve into one of the most pressing issues of our time, the American opioid crisis. This crisis has left an incredible mark on communities across the nation, prompting crucial questions about responsibility, accountability and the role of our legal system. To help us navigate through this intricate web of legal and ethical considerations, we've brought together a panel of distinguished experts. First we have Professor Sara Romano, a leading authority on legal ethics, whose insights have shaped the discourse on ethical practice within the legal profession. Hi everybody, and hi Emily, thank you for having me. I've been looking forward to joining this discussion. That's great to hear. Joining Sara is a representative from Purdue Pharma, attorney Alessia Zeo. Her perspective offers us a unique window into the difficulty faced by those directly involved in the pharmaceutical industry during the crisis. Yeah, thanks Emily for having me. We at Purdue Pharma have been looking forward to being able to have this discussion and, you know, finally put an end to all the rumors spread by the press. I hope to have an interesting discussion today. Yeah, definitely. And finally, we are honored to be joined by the class action representative attorney Anne-Sophie Jensen, who has taken on the role of representing all the families impacted by consumption of OxyContin. Their stories add an important human dimension to this discussion, reminding us of the real lives affected by these events. Welcome, Anne-Sophie. Thank you, Emily. We have been looking forward to sharing insights and getting some answers. I know we in the studio, as well as the listeners, would be interested in hearing how each of you first encountered the case. Anne-Sophie, let's hear from you. Well, I first heard this story from a client, and I was really shocked by the severity of the case. I was initially approached by a family who had lost a daughter to opiate addiction, and their story deeply affected me. Oh, my God. Yeah, she was a really bright girl. It started very innocent with a prescription for pain relief from a sports injury, but over the years, the opiate transformed her to a person her family couldn't even recognize anymore. And, yeah, her family really tried to help her, but in the end, the opiate won. This is, unfortunately, just one story amongst many. The opiate crisis has deeply impacted all these individuals, and therefore I felt very compelled to stand up for those people's immense grief and fight for their justice. Great story. Mine is definitely not as touching as yours. I first heard about the crisis through the media, and then learned more through, like, some discussions with some ethics colleagues. Yeah, like many. And lastly, Alessia, let's hear from you. Yeah, since I started law school, working in the medical industry has always been a dream of mine. I worked so hard for it, like, I was a full-time working student, so... Wow, that must be hard. Yeah, you can imagine the struggle. And then I took a master's degree in pharmaceutical law and pharmacy management, and then when I was hired by Purdue Pharma, I felt so honored and glad, and I've been working for them for over a decade. That's why they've chosen me to represent them, because, you know, of my experience and the knowledge I have of the company's policies. Yeah, that makes sense. I could imagine working for a company that's wildly known as the instigator of a national crisis would bring some concerns, especially with integrity. Sarah, could you, in short, explain the ethical view on integrity? Yeah, sure. When we talk about integrity, we need to refer to the Latin root of the term, which is integrare, that in Latin means to be a whole. That said, integrity refers to the situation in which your conduct conforms to your principles, and that applies both in personal but also in professional life. Okay, but how come that happens? So you're asking how you can reach integrity, right? Yeah. Okay, so I think that it's not the easiest thing in the world, and some just think that you can reach integrity by changing your principles instead of your behavior. But in my opinion, if you do that, you're just a terrible lawyer. Whenever you take into account a new role as a lawyer, you should just ask yourself, am I crossing a point of no return? Does that align with my principles? And only by introspecting and questioning your actions, then you will be able to understand if that aligns or not with the right values. So yeah, just listen to your daemon, basically. Yeah, so personal loyalty is one thing, but with Alessia taking on this case, we're witnessing another form of loyalty, which is loyalty to profession. And being loyal to your profession is one matter, but I could imagine that defending a highly vilified company after the loss of many lives, and especially amidst this public scrutiny and personal threats, would pose a significant moral dilemma. So Alessia, can you shed a light on how this decision has impacted your personal integrity, and maybe even further, your professional responsibilities? Yeah, actually, choosing to represent Purdue Pharma was a professional duty to me. Indeed, in such cases where the media attention is extremely pressing and where the emotional charge is high, the right to a just defense could and sometimes is compromised. Indeed, we have to remember that the right to be defended is a fundamental principle in our legal system, regardless of our position in society. And yeah, about my personal integrity, in line with the clear definition told by Sarah, I can affirm that following this case is perfectly aligned with my principles. I strongly believe that the law should prevail on the emotions in order to guarantee our constitutional and democratic order. A good lawyer should collaborate with the judges in order to avoid arbitrary influence sentences, especially when the media is so quick to jump to conclusions, like putting all blame on Purdue, which is, I think, very wrong. That said, it's impossible to ignore the man's pain and suffering experienced by those affected by the opioid crisis. With Purdue Pharma, I believe it's important that the families and the affected get justice where it's right. This case demands a level of empathy that extends beyond the courtroom. It underscores the need for comprehensive solutions and accountability across the industry and, like, not just at Purdue's hands. Wow, now I'm just trying to shift blame away from Purdue. Especially when this whole crisis could just have been avoided if you listened to your experts and doctors before pushing your drug into the market. Your actions were necessary and absolutely sufficient to cause this. I strongly believe Purdue has a moral obligation not to perform an act that causes harm to other people. Yeah, so thank you for sharing your perspective, Antofi. I think you've raised a really crucial point about accountability in this complex situation. And related to this, I think it would be useful to explore the ethical concept of the harm principle, which was first introduced by Armstrong. Oh, Armstrong, yeah, that makes a lot of sense. We had a conversation, me and Alessia, like, before the recording about that. Yeah, I think it's very interesting and it really applies to our case. Yeah, I think that too. And I will refer in the first place to each example of the car accident. I don't know if you know that, Emily. Yeah, I was actually going to come to that. So, for the listeners, this principle, the harm principle, stipulates that an act must be both necessary and sufficient for an individual to be held responsible. And, like Sarah said, Armstrong uses an analogy of pushing a car over a cliff. And, citing his text, he says, imagine that it takes three people to push a car over a cliff with the passenger locked inside, and five people are already pushing. So, if I join in and help them push, then my act of pushing is neither necessary nor sufficient to make the car go over the cliff. So, basically what this harm principle implies is that Purdue has a moral obligation not to produce drugs only if such production actually causes harm. I don't like where this is going. Yeah, so, according to the principle, such production doesn't cause harm in normal cases. And, under normal circumstances, Purdue produces a drug that a doctor would then prescribe to patients, ensuring that they're actually in need of the drug, and that they have the right instructions for intake, which, like I said in normal circumstances, is harmless and safe. But, in contrast, addiction, and especially this opioid addiction, will still occur. Moreover, even if Purdue does keep the production of OxyContin running, just for profits, addiction won't occur unless many doctors prescribe the drug without care, as people who abuse it or don't need it. So, the conclusion, when using this harm principle, is in contrast to your conclusion, Anne-Sophie, that Purdue's individual act is neither necessary nor sufficient for the opioid crisis. Yeah, I do understand your point. But, even though that might be the case, I do still believe Purdue has a moral obligation to not make problems worse. Maybe the production itself doesn't directly cause harm, but Purdue has an individual responsibility not to contribute to this chain reaction. Purdue is the initial producer, so they play a role in causing harm towards the consumers. Also, I believe that Purdue has an obligation not to treat an individual as mere means, and in this case, I'm talking about how Purdue continued to make economic gain from their production, while many victims at the same time suffered from addiction and side effects. In the beginning, Purdue's intention might have been to offer pain relief to the consumers, but when finding out about this huge cash flow, their intentions, in my opinion, shifted. And this is where their intention became initially harmful, which I find very morally wrong. No way. This argument is based on mere assumptions. You assume that Purdue's production, and not the unnecessary medical prescription, and the drug-abusing problem, made the opioid crisis worse. And you describe our psychological attitude as a given fact, when it's evident that we've always acted for the people's health. The production of drugs is both legal and beneficial for everyone who needs them. The addiction crisis would be just as bad if Purdue ceased the production today, and never distributed another pill. The crucial element is that drugs don't land in wrong hands, but as soon as the drug leaves our facility, we cannot control who it ends up with, and it's quite obvious. Like we've stated multiple times, OxyContin is intended for pain relief, and should only be prescribed for this purpose. So, basically, if doctors gave it to someone not in that category, they should take their own responsibility, as they get consumers, not Purdue. Yeah, well, thank you, Alessia, for your candid response. So, what I'm essentially hearing you say is that Purdue believes that the blame is to be spread out, not just on Purdue's hands. And I find that to be a very interesting point. I remember reading about it in, if I'm correct, in Armstrong's article, which is about the individual moral obligation. Oh, yeah, yeah, I know that article kind of well. And even though it is actually about climate change, I think that it focuses on some ethical points which can be very applicable in this situation. Yeah, exactly, Sarah, I had the same idea. So, citing the article, individuals have a moral obligation to take action to combat global warming, which is, in our case, opioid addiction. But this obligation is limited by the fact that governments and larger institutions have a greater capacity to make meaningful change. Therefore, individuals should focus their efforts on advocating for systematic change rather than solely relying on personal lifestyle changing. And, according to this perspective, as a major pharmaceutical company with significant economic influence, Purdue should be at the forefront of this change and implement adjustments or regulations to the prescription of OxyContin. Yeah, I couldn't agree more, actually. Like, in my opinion, everyone should give their contribution to impose a positive change in society. Nevertheless, we are aware of the power and the connecting responsibilities we have, of course, as a large corporation. But, yeah, I feel like we've made efforts to make a difference, I mean, by giving people back their lives. Did you know that, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2021 there were 2.6 million non-fatal accidents at work? Imagine how many families would have suffered without our medicines. Or I think we could do more as a big company to raise awareness, especially among doctors, about the deadly effects of drug abuse. But we need government collaboration, as it has the authority to enforce the right guidelines. Like the gun industry, for instance, you know? Yeah, go on. A gun in the wrong hands can cause immense harm, but in the right hands it can save lives, and it's the official guidelines that help the industry ensure guns end up in the right hands. I believe that, similarly, guidelines should be in place to ensure that doctors are obliged to only prescribe drugs when it's necessary. Yeah, I totally understand. So, what I'm hearing you say is that Purdue is advocating for governmental intervention, essentially believing that finding and executing a genuine solution falls within the realm of government's responsibility. Yeah, but Alicia is basically implying that she doesn't see Purdue as having any moral obligation to reduce harm. Yeah, which I find to be a very interesting perspective. And I have to be honest here, because throughout our podcast journey, I've held to the belief that establishing responsibility requires a moral principle to substantiate that claim. But, Sarah, before we started recording, you said something to me that I haven't thought of before. Yeah, before the recording, I simply suggested that your exploration, the one that you're doing now of various principles, reveals that seeking underlying moral principles just in order to validate your moral instincts may not always be the most effective approach, in my opinion. Yes, exactly. Because Anne-Sophie has already articulated her reasons for advocating a moral principle to support our understanding in this particular case. And simply given the controversy, emotional weight, and distinctly modern nature of this situation, I think this case is likely to be sensitive to an oversimplification and maybe some bias. I think these factors indicate that, at least in this case, we should maybe seek validation for a moral understanding, even if it might not always be necessary in other contexts. And for these reasons, it appears that a moral principle is warranted, yet we find ourselves lacking one, which I find to be very frustrating. But nevertheless, this doesn't inherently imply that the distribution of oxycontin is not morally problematic, which is why, Sarah, I'm interested in hearing what ethical frameworks you believe guide our understanding of the moral obligations, especially of pharmaceutical companies. Thank you for the question, Amelie. It's essential to approach this issue with a critical understanding. When we discuss the ethical obligations of pharmaceutical companies in this case, we are dealing with three main ethical frameworks, in my opinion. The first one is the utilitarianism, that evaluates action based on their overall contribution to the general's well-being, which means that pharmaceutical companies, in this case, as I said, have a duty to produce medications that alleviate suffering. However, it's crucial to balance this with the potential harm that we can have. Then we have the ontology, so basically Kant, on the other hand, which emphasizes duties and principles. So in this case, pharmaceutical companies have to ensure the safety and the efficiency of their products. Otherwise, it leads to serious ethical concerns. And the third framework, which I would like to analyze, is like virtue ethics, which delve into the character of individuals and organizations. So here, we consider not just the actions, but also the intentions of those involved. Pharmaceutical companies should demonstrate virtues, like, I don't know, transparency, honesty, and a serious commitment to public health. Thank you, Sarah. And whilst on the topic about intentions and honesty, I would be interested in hearing from you, Alesha, because the media has, since the beginning, discussed the allegations regarding Purdue's knowledge of the addictive nature of their product. So could you address whether, during your time with Purdue, you were aware of any potential side effects and the risks associated with the drug? I think this is especially important in the light of the claims about the influence exerted by your sales representatives on doctors to describe a heightened dose of the drug. So, Alesha, what is Purdue's response to these allegations? I sincerely want to thank you for this question, Amelie, as it gives me the opportunity to clarify one of the hottest topics of public speculation, I would say, in this case. Firstly, some context. Every drug has a risk of percentage of abuse. Every doctor knows that, and everyone who's interested in buying a drug is informed about its side effects. I mean, every individual makes their own choices. Then, about sales representatives, let's be clear, they just did their job, which is to sell. Purdue Pharma gave highly paid jobs to many people, the one left behind by the progress of society, improving their lives and the ones of their families. However, that said, I'm not a doctor, I'm a lawyer, so I only rely on data according to which every drug, even simple paracetamol, has side effects, and I only know the answers my clients give to my questions. I do not need and I'm not obliged to know more than this to work on the case, and I really want to be sincere. At no point during my time at Purdue was I aware of any intentional effort to downplay or conceal the addictive nature of our product. It's incorrect to suggest that I or any of my colleagues knowingly pushed it for higher doses without caring about the risks involved. I just simply don't believe that it's true. Not long after the drug was released, many doctors presented their concerns with the drug, the first one being issued even before the drug was approved by the FDA. I just don't believe that you as a lawyer for the company did not know about these facts. In order to respond to your argument regarding the sales crew, it's important here to understand that Purdue Pharma, like many other pharmaceutical companies, was guided by a profit-driven motive. They don't care about the casualties that follow as long as a big check is deposited at the end of the day. We have multiple former sales employers who have testified to the pressure they felt to meet sales targets, so how can you justify that? Well, sorry Anne-Sophie, but now we are falling into banal rhetoric. Profit-making is at the core of every company's operations, so why depicting Purdue as evil when every company in the world operates under the same principle? There was pressure to meet sales targets, of course, as it always is, again, it's how our economy works, but it is important to know that the difference with Purdue is that our focus has always been on ensuring that products were used responsibly and in the best interest of patients, and I repeat again, any allegation that I normally neglected the potential for abuse is unfounded. Okay, thank you for your response. Sarah, do you have anything to add to this? Well, David Luban's theory here, I think it's very useful, because this theory says basically that in certain situations, individuals, but also organizations, intentionally remain uninformed about certain facts in order to avoid legal or moral responsibilities. Yeah, it's a tricky concept, I can see. As regards legal ethics and the duty of the lawyer, I think that the topic happens to be very complicated, so that probably not even a whole day would be enough to discuss it. I will just try to make it short. So at the heart of legal issues here, we have this question. Is it more acceptable for a lawyer to employ a don't-ask, don't-tell strategy? Is it acceptable to ignore certain aspects of the case in order to use a better defense and at the same time to avoid liability? Currently, we have the model rules of professional conduct. I think you know them. They do not include conscious avoidance of actual knowledge as grounds for liability, but some say that it should be added in order to push moral growth forward. What do you honestly think? Okay, so what do I honestly think? I think that these model rules should not be changed at all. Although it can lead to unethical behaviors by lawyers who are motivated by financial gain that I don't like at all, it protects the lawyer-client relationship. Indeed, sometimes false legal details, I think you know that, can appear in the storytelling of the client, and forcing the lawyer to always investigate them could just lead to the situation in which the client loses a lawsuit, maybe unjustly. That being said, in my opinion, the lawyer has always the moral duty, if not the legal one, not to behave like a fox, as Luban would have said in this case, using the chance not to ask about something as a mere excuse, as a loop, I would say. Unfortunately, many lawyers today are just foxes. Well, Sara, it is a very interesting theory, and, unfortunately, I have no doubt that many lawyers apply it, but, really, I feel relieved that this theory does not apply to me, because it is simply contrary to my principles to choose ignorance as a strategy, especially in matters of such gravity. Yeah, thank you all for sharing your insights on this complex and testive issue. I think it is clear that the ethical considerations surrounding Purdue Pharma and the opioid crisis are multifaceted and deeply rooted in legal and moral philosophy. So, Anne-Sophie, I have had many experts grace my podcast with their knowledge and experiences, but I have never had a class action attorney join, actually. So, I was very interested in hearing from you just how it is to take on these class actions, and, more importantly, how you manage the lawyer-client relationship with your clients, because I could imagine in sensitive cases like this it would be more intricate than in normal circumstances. Thank you, Emily. Handling these class actions for the family has been both challenging and difficult, but also very fulfilling for me. These cases are, of course, as you said, very sensitive, because many of the victims or the families may be dealing with trauma and loss. In that way, it is very important to show empathy and give emotional support, which is almost as important as the legal representation itself. That is also why I have found it a bit hard to maintain a certain distance, because you, of course, cannot avoid getting affected by all the stories, but you still need to stay professional as a lawyer, because a set-up spends a lot of time finding the right balance in order to provide a serious and effective legal defense. And, yeah, in my opinion, loyalty towards the client is key, and it is important to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the client's personal information and the specifics of their cases, especially in these sensitive cases. Yeah, absolutely. And in a case like this, I guess sensitivity and professionalism is super important. And, on the other hand, we have Alessia, who is exercising quite a different job. So, Alessia, how do you manage your lawyer-client relationship, and do you see any differences as to what Anne-Sophie just described, maybe? Well, Amelie, actually, also in my case, as Anne-Sophie pointed out, it is crucial to be professional, so I always try to have a kind of formal relationship with my client and, you know, to maintain a certain emotional detachment, because, yeah, I believe it to be the best for the case. In doing so, I really try to put my client's interests above all and I basically try to make their wishes true through my legal expertise. Oh, yeah, I find it so stimulating to know your outlook as lawyers, because, you know, I always have the opinions of scholars. Wow, it must be so boring to hear that from someone that's not in the field. No, no, I actually enjoy that also, because, you know, I'm actually a scholar as well. Yeah, so as Anne-Sophie pointed out, I think that it's always extremely hard for lawyers to find the right balance in the relationship with a client, especially when the case is so emotional. However, I think that sometimes being influenced and pushed forward by clients is actually very useful for your job, because that phenomenon in a psychological field is called social cognition and it could help you through your work as a lawyer. Yeah, that's definitely an interesting take and thanks for your input, Sarah. I wanted to thank you all for partaking in today's discussions and adding a valuable input. It's a round of rather knowledgeable and learning experience. I would love to hear the panel if you have any advice for the future. This whole situation has been characterized by a lot of moral considerations and what some might view as immoral lawyering. Sarah, you're quite publicly known for promoting the principle of social corporate responsibility and you have many times brought up the article of David and Goliath, where in the text the authors argue that corporate lawyers have a significant role to play in promoting corporate social responsibility and ensuring that the legal rights of victims are effectuated. Could you maybe elaborate a bit on that thought? Well, I will start with some terminologies. When we talk about the moral lawyer, we are referring to someone who does the only interest of the part and doesn't care about the public interests or the rights of third parties or also human rights violations, for example. Even though this concept, in an ideal world, would lead to the symmetry of the parties in the trial, I have to say that in our sad real world that is nothing like that. For example, imagine a football match between Juventus, you know that, right, and let's say a tiny city of 3,000 in Abyssinia and Sicily. For example, I don't know, maybe. What you see here is a lack of symmetry, which is visible from the beginning of the match. Juventus as a team has tons of money, the best players from all over the world and the best coach. Marie, on the other hand, the tiny city has players who can only train during the night because they have other jobs and the budget of the team consists, for example, I don't know, in the money and selling cakes on Sunday like after the mass outside the church. Thus, even though I would think that the small team deserves to win more, maybe because they train so much, I know that they will probably lose just because they are in a place of disadvantage. So, do you actually believe there is a solution for the problem, though? Yes, and as you also mentioned, it's called corporate social responsibility. This concept requires companies to consider moral values when they operate, such as not causing harm to individuals or respect for the natural environment, which is very important, or, I don't know, adding value to society. There were several resolutions adopted by the European Union to ensure the respect of corporate social responsibility. I personally have high hopes about the future development of this way of thinking. Sophie, what is your standpoint on that? Do you think that Purdue Pharma has a corporate social responsibility for the negative effect of their products? Yes, I definitely think that Purdue has a corporate social responsibility for the consequences of their actions in the community, and that means, as a lawyer, as Sarah also talked about, that you should refrain from placing the interests of clients above those of the public and affected parties, because this will only risk normalizing and also morally justifying a practice where economic interests come at the expense of the legal rights of victims of corporate wrongdoing. In this case, I strongly empathize that the rights of victims have not been taken into account at all, and I would go as far as saying that Alicia's approach to this case is very admirable. Thank you, Anne-Sophie. Thank you for knowing Alicia's point on that. In addition, I would like to know your opinion on the role of big companies nowadays. Well, Amelie, despite the general opinions of big companies, I still believe they are at the core of our societies. Like, you know, investing in such companies, we have the chance to make our lives better. We, as Purdue, want to exploit the knowledge and the technological advances to live in a productive and, I would dare, pain-free society where we can reach our dreams more easily. This is why, after all the tragedies caused by the uncontrolled prescribing and the plague of the addiction, we, as Purdue Pharma, will train ourselves to stimulate the doctors, you know, to reflect on the possible side effects, and we will fund an awareness campaign on the topic. Well, nice. That was quick after so many people died. Well, Anne-Sophie, I can understand the suffering, of course. Purdue is not indifferent to the casualties, but, hey, realistically, a company can intervene on its policies, not on the company, not God. But, anyways, returning to your question, Emily, about the corporate social responsibility principles. Well, I think it's a very intriguing theory, and we, as Purdue Pharma, truly haven't hurt people and the environment's health. That's why we're working hard to try to make people's lives better, and the aforementioned initiatives go towards this direction. Okay, but do you perceive yourself as an amoral lawyer, or do you agree with the corporate social responsibility theory? I believe that, actually, amoral lawyering is a very biased concept. Yeah, it relies on the structural asymmetries between big companies and individuals, the first being depicted as Goliath and the second as David. Well, then, I would like to make Goliaths uncommon. These differences are just structural, and it's not the company's fault if they are powerful. Furthermore, would you trust your lawyer if the corporate social responsibility principle was fully applied? I mean, would you trust the corporate social responsibility principle if the corporate social responsibility principle was fully applied? No, I wouldn't do that. Lawyers should just work for the clients using the best techniques they know, and I don't think they should be taken away from them. Thank you for the insightful and interesting discussion. I wanted to now consider the legal landscape and the skills necessary for lawyers to navigate such complex cases. Yeah, sure. So, navigating the legal landscape around the U.S. period crisis, I think that we have seen that there is a complex challenge, and nowadays the role of the T-shaped lawyer is getting more and more popularity, because it's often necessary for a lawyer to have horizontal knowledge with regards, for example, I don't know, I think that all this effort to describe the three kinds of lawyers, so the state man, the rational lawyer, the T-shaped lawyer, is quite useless again, because since the birth of this professional role, we are in ancient Greece basically, the lawyer needed to learn to be all of these three kinds with all these features, just put together or in a way to become a better lawyer, that is the core of the profession, probably the only true feature of it, what definitely makes a good lawyer, or even the best lawyer here, being adaptable to different situations, and capable of choosing which skill to pick each time. You know, I think that's right, and I think that if one of you, my friends, is like this, this lawyer, you have already won, at least at the lawyering match. Yeah, that's true. Thank you guys, and I think that's all the time we have for today, and as we wrap up this session, I would like to invite you to stay up to date on our weekly ethical discussions. See you next time. Bye. See you next week on Legal Compass.