BYR Achieve · 镜像论坛

Is Dunn Really A Felon? Henry Blodget 10.06.06, 10:30 AM ET Something feels wrong here. Before I describe what, however, I need to discuss what is not wrong. It is not wrong that former Hewlett-Packard (nyse: HPQ - news - people ) Chairman Patricia Dunn was publicly ridiculed for ordering and overseeing a cloak-and-dagger investigation of boardroom leaks. It is not wrong that Dunn (finally) resigned over this. She should have taken responsibility and resigned immediately, whether or not she knew about the "pretexting." It is not wrong that HP board members like Thomas Perkins would be outraged about the investigation and quit the board in protest, and it is not wrong that everyone thinks pretexting (aka fraud) is unethical--it obviously is. It is also not wrong that everyone thinks Dunn made a bad business decision--she did. And it is not wrong that HP has been globally shamed for engaging in such a practice--it should have been. What feels wrong is that Dunn has been charged with four felonies. Unless the California attorney general knows something that the rest of us don't (possible), Dunn neither intended to commit a crime nor knew one was being committed. On the contrary, she took repeated steps to assure herself that the investigation was legal. She sought and received assurances from, among others, HP's general counsel, Ann Baskins--an expert far better qualified than Dunn to determine the investigation's legality (and who, for some reason, has not been charged with the same crimes). Baskins reportedly concluded and still believes that the investigation was legal. Wilson Sonsini, HP's outside law firm, concluded and still believes that the investigation was legal. As do other legal experts. So what more could Dunn have done? Used her own legal spidey sense to say, "Hey, my lawyers tell me it's fine, but I think they're wrong"? Again, the issue is not whether the investigation was smart or ethical--it wasn't--but whether it was criminal. And it seems a more than fair defense for Dunn to say, "I consulted legal experts--not hacks, mind you, lawyers at the top of their field--and they assured me it was legal." Dunn will have an opportunity to make this defense, of course, but she will have to do it in court, after sacrificing her board seats, reputation, more than a year of her life and tens of millions of dollars in legal fees. And given that hindsight is 20/20 and juries aren't omniscient, she might still go to jail. Meanwhile, the person who allegedly put some of these events in motion, an alleged leaker, Dr. George Keyworth, has been portrayed as a helpless victim, worthy of sympathy. Keyworth has every right to be outraged that his employer defrauded the telephone company to get his phone records. He does not, however, deserve to feel holier-than-thou about his own conduct in the affair. On the contrary, if Dr. Keyworth did, in fact, chat secretly with reporters about ongoing board discussions, he betrayed HP, HP's shareholders and the rest of the board. He violated his professional duty, and then (by not resigning when called on it) refused to take responsibility for his actions. Keyworth's defenders point out that he "had HP's interests in mind." Maybe, but secretly dishing to reporters about inner workings of board discussions was just what the board was trying to prevent, and, if he did it, he betrayed the company by doing it.

[Forbes News] Is Dunn Really A Felon?