The following is the conclusion of an excellent post on the recent Pfizer-Justice Department settlement noting that it met “the People’s” justice interests better than a judgment could have. The full article, Settlement and Justice for All by Robert C. Bordone & Matthew J. Smith** can be found here at the Harvard Negotiation Law Review.
More than honoring principles a court might champion, the negotiated settlement with Pfizer allows the Justice Department to secure commitments from Pfizer that would have been unlikely in a court verdict. In addition to the enormous cash payment, the settlement agreement allows for closer monitoring of Pfizer by Justice Department officials in the years ahead, ensuring corporate accountability and providing an extra measure of protection for consumers. As part of the deal, Pfizer entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services and will be required to maintain a corporate compliance program for the next five years. While a judge might choose to retain judicial oversight in a particular case, federal courts typically lack the expertise or resources to provide the kind of enforcement needed to ensure a systemic and long-term remedy in a technical or highly specialized case such as this.
The Pfizer settlement represents the best kind of transparent, efficient, and wise government law enforcement. It holds Pfizer wholly accountable for its actions, sends a strong and clear message to the public that corporate malfeasance will not be tolerated, provides for ongoing enforcement, and it does it all at a fraction of the cost of trial. While many cases should proceed to trial for reasons of precedent and public policy, negotiated settlement – when approached with wisdom and aplomb – can be a most efficient and effective means of law enforcement.
For my own posts and mediation, negotiation and justice, see Delivering Justice in Community Mediation, Negotiating Justice: Anchoring, Bias, Dad and Sotomayor, and Do Interest-Based Negotiation and Mediation Trade Justice for Harmony?
Thanks to Don Philbin for being one of the best navigators of quality in the ADRosphere! “Friend” him on Facebook here.
________________
**/ Robert C. Bordone is the Thaddeus R. Beal Clinical Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Director of the Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program. Matthew J. Smith is a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and a Clinical Fellow at the Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program
Constance Ahrons discusses how divorce does not mean automatic crises and disaster for a family and with cultural changes, family models are ever-changing. As long as the child has support,...
By Constance AhronsLast week, the Ombudsman for the international public health agency told leadership that managers lack the interpersonal skills required for effective team communications, constructive conversations about performance, and conflict resolution....
By Tom KosakowskiIn February I had the opportunity to speak at Ignite Waterloo. Wow…was I nervous! I had 20 slides that auto-advanced every 15 seconds. I’m not going to lie, I didn’t...
By Jason Dykstra
