Ethics

1. Facts
The city council unanimously voted to pass the policy for random drug and alcohol testing

2. Details
Ima Louise is City Attorney for 15 years
She represents the city in litigation involving city, state or federal law.
Expert in employment discrimination.
City council to consider all current and perspective city employees to have random drug and alcohol testing.
Testing at least once a month while employed.
Most case law does not support this kind of policy.
Louise is radically opposed to the use of alcohol and drugs.
He has had family deaths related to alcohol and drugs.
He gives council a brief citing the few cases he can find on the side of the policy.
The city council passes the policy.
The union files a class action suit against the city.

3. Issue
Is it ethical for an attorney to sway judgment toward personal reasons for policy

4. Ideals
Honesty  Attorneys are honest and do the best thing for those they work for.
Integrity  Attorneys work hard to get where they are and have a lot of integrity.
Prudence Was it prudent for the attorney to create a case that is not factual
Justice  Was justice served for the City
Courage  Was this a courageous act
Beneficence  Was this a do no harm decision

5. Obligations
Louise
Self
Louise spent a lot of time and effort getting to where he is, he should maintain his integrity.
He would have some satisfaction that those using drugs and alcohol while working for the city would be caught.
City
He is responsible for assuring that the city does the right thing.
He is responsible to assure that the city is within the law when adopting policy.
He has a professional obligation to the court.
The City
The city has the obligation to always make the best decision for the most people.

6. Consequences
Louise
Positive Negative
Very popular for doing a good job. Fired from his job.
Got a policy he personally liked Ends up in litigation because of lack of support.
Is highly respected. Loss of respect by the City.
Wins the Case. Loses the case.
The City
Have a powerful new policy . End up in litigation for unfair practices.
Popular with the City . End up not re-elected.

Conclusion
The ethical standard of utilitarian perspective attends to the necessity of remembering that if there are two actions to be considered, the most ethical action is the right action. It must have the greatest balance of benefit over harm. It focuses on the consequence that actions or policies have the well being of all persons directly or indirectly affected by the action in mind.

In this case, Louise, who was supposed to be responsible for assuring that the city stayed out of court when adopting new policies failed. There were two distinct and possible actions. Louise studied previous cases before making his decision and saw that there was little to support this kind of policy, in fact many of these policies had done poorly in the past. However, he had a personnel need to see a policy like this passed because he had lost family members to drugs and alcohol.  It was, according to the utilitarian perspective his need to make the best decision for the greatest number of people.

In this case, the decision to encourage the council to pass the policy was a personal one. The one that would protect the most people would have been not to pass the policy. The personnel decision cost the City greatly both monetarily and reputation. Also the policy violates the rights of the many. In making a utilitarian decision one must remember to improve the well being of the most, not harm the most.

This is a case of allowing ones personnel opinion override their professional opinion. Louise knew the right thing to do and chose the one he personally wanted. In the end, like with so many personal issues, they all will have to pay.