Harrison Lockington

Paige Wells
Business Ethics
November 12, 2014

The case of Harrison - Lockington began in January of 2003 between Jack Gordon and
Steve Ross, two employees of the Vancouver based Harrison and Lockington firm. Harrison Lockington was one of Canada's leading law firms with more than 250 lawyers in offices
throughout Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, and New York. The Harrison - Lockington firm
handled cases of mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance, tort, pension, intellectual property
and commercial litigation. Steven Ross was hired in 1996 by Jack Gordon to replace an office
manager and came with pervious office manager experience at a Vancouver Accounting firm.
Ross' job included being responsible for all non-legal professional matters including facilities,
payroll, marketing, social activities, charitable donations and events, and human resources.
Jack Gordon was the managing partner of Harrison - Lockington's Vancouver office and
focused on administrative law: litigation and dispute resolution. Gordon was responsible for 90
people, including 15 partners, 20 associates, 30 legal assistances, and 25 administrative support
staff. He was accountable for the operating budget, client and principle office relations, and all
media relations for the Vancouver office.
Tom Welch is the C.O.O. of Harrison - Lockington in the Toronto office. After the
merger, Steven Ross began reporting to Welch directly on a monthly basis. Tom Welch began
investigating Ross' financials after an issue with a new computer, and was making a trip to
Vancouver to talk with Ross even before his confession to Gordon was made.

Facts
The confession occurred at 8:05 am on Monday, January 13th, 2003 in Steven Ross'
office in Vancouver, British Columbia. Steven Ross was hired in 1996 as an office manager at
Harrison-Lockington to replace the previous employee holding that position. Jack Gordon was

the managing partner of the Vancouver office of Harrison-Lockington. Ross discussed his
confession with Gordon, that January morning when Gordon came into Ross' office. Ross stated,
"Over the past three years or, so I have been taking money from the firm, probably around
$300,000. Ross discussed how he did it through the payroll system and expense reports. Ross
believed he was going to get caught and explained that as the reason he finally decided to
confess. "That's why I am telling you Jack. I was going to get caught one way or another," Ross
concluded. The confession lasted approximately 45 minutes according to Gordon.
Missing Facts: Why was the previous office manager replaced? Did Gordon and Ross
know each other previous to Ross being hired? When exactly did Ross begin stealing from the
company? How did Ross gain sole authority over instructing the bank and bank related
transactions? Who had been warning Ross of their suspicion from the Toronto staff and how will
they be included in the case?

Standards
The six best ethical standards to represent this case are; Utilitarian, Common Good,
Virtue, Economic, Legal, and Organizational.
Because this case is centered around personal misconduct but within a business, the three
business standards are used. The Economic approach will look out for the best interests of the
company from a financial standpoint, and look out for the best economic option in the short and
long term for the company. The Organizational approach will examine the case with the benefits
of the organizations as a whole in mind. The Legal approach will ask the simple question of the
legality of the situation and if the case is a violation of company, state, and federal laws and
policies.

The Utilitarian approach will look at each possible solution and weigh the outcomes in
regards to which will produce the most good and the least bad for all involved. "The utilitarian
calculation requires that we assign values to the benefits and harms resulting from our actions
and compare them with the benefits and harms that might result from other actions (Calculating
Consequences). The Common Good approach will decide an outcome based on which option
does the most good and benefits the entire group and in this case the entire company. With that
being said "common good approach" is an idea established within a group or organization.
"Establishing and maintaining the common good requires the cooperative efforts of some, often
of many, people." The Virtue approach will examine the situation through which solution
portrays the company as virtuous and which depicts the company as they want to be perceived.
As explained in a Scienta Salon article, "Virtue ethics looks neither to rules nor to consequences.
Instead it considers internal motivations directed at realizing the telos, or end, of a good

person (Virtue Ethics).

Using the Rights and/or Justice Approach to come up with a solution to this case would
both swing in an obvious direction as the activity carried out by Ross was obviously wrong and
illegal and the only outcomes to justify the means would be trial and jail time.

Options
There are four different options for Gordon to carry out after he has received the news of
Ross' illegal activity. 1) Gordon could help Ross conspire and cover up the allegations soon to be
made against him by Welch, 2) Gordon could meet with Welch before he talks with Ross to say

that he discovered Ross was stealing money from the company, with no mention of the
confession making him the "hero," 3) Gordon, Ross, and Welch could meet together and discuss
the issue, with Gordon giving Ross the opportunity to confess to Welch with hopes of a lesser
punishment, or 4) Gordon could take the matter completely in his own hands and bring it to his
boss or the companys CEO and discuss with them Ross' confession.
Option 1: To conspire and cover up the misconduct of Ross would "pass" through the
Utilitarian perspective as although illegal, it would do little harm as long as no one found out.
Also the Utilitarian approach states that, "If lying would produce the best consequences in a
particular situation, we ought to lie" (Calculating Consequences). This option offers up the most
good, no consequences at all and least bad for Ross and Gordon. This option however does
neither pass nor fail the Common Good approach as well as the Organizational approach as it
does not have the interest of the company in mind nor does it project the company as one to be
desired. Covering up the mess Ross has created could lead to more stealing if over looked and a
poor perception of the company as a legal entity. This option "fails" in regards to the Virtue and
Legal approaches as obviously it is illegal and does not portray the company how it would like to
be portrayed.
Option 2: For Gordon to take credit for solving the case and give no reward to Ross for
coming clean of the issue passes no aspect of the six ethical standards. There is some grey area in
regards to the Utilitarian approach, Economic, and Organizational as at least in this option
Gordon is letting Ross' illegal actions be known so further action can be taken. With that being
said taking credit for discovering Ross' activity is not the right thing to do and could cause issues
within the organization. This leads to the option failing in the Common Good approach, Virtue,

and Legal approach as this option is illegal (Gordon lying) and does not instill honesty and pride
within the company if a head manager is demonstrating neither.
Option 3: Giving Ross the opportunity to confess to Welch is the only option to pass in
regards to all ethical standards. This option serves to do the most good with little back lass other
than what is put on Ross. This option also has the best interests of the company and organization
in mind by coming clean the illegal activity and allowing Ross to confess himself, thus passing
the Common Good, Virtue, and Organizational approaches. This option allows the company
Ross and Gordon to look as good as they possibly given the circumstances and also let it be
known to the organizational that this behavior will not be tolerated. Economically and Legally
this is the best option as little further repercussions can occur such as further fees or other
employees who aided in the cover could be fined.
Option 4: Although this option covers Gordon legally as he brings the issue to the
employees, it does not necessarily pass or fail any of the ethical standards but instead fall in the
middle of them all. The task of going higher up is not necessary for Gordon to do, especially
with Welch coming to discuss the issue anyway. Gordon here would be looking out for the best
option for himself personally rather than with the company and its employees in mind.
Economically the higher up positions at the company might decide to take the issue to court
sooner and longer and end up costing the company more money in the long run especially if the
issue can be handled internally. Going over Welch's head will probably leave Gordon under fire
from Welch in the future.

Rankings
The possible outcomes for the four suggested outcomes rank as follows from best to
worst. Option 3, Option 4, Option 2, and Option 4.
Option 3 was ranked as the best option as it met every standard and provided each
employee involved with an opportunity to take credit and come to a resolution before higher
powers were involved. This option will also benefit the company as the zero tolerance of stealing
does not go unrecognized. Option 4 would be the next best option as it serves to handle the issue
at the top of the company and will involve legal authorities. This option would not be the
"quietest" nor the cheapest but justice would be served and credit would be awarded. Option 2
and 4 both do not pass the process of the Legal approach and would thus cause havoc in many
other areas of the company. Illegal behavior is never the answer, especially when dealing with a
company who is a law firm. Conspiring in shady behaviors internally will discredit the law firm
itself.

Recommendation
Option 3 should be carried out by the staff involved in the Harrision - Lockington case.
After the initial confession Ross should be given a lawyer and Gordon should contact the
company's lawyer as well. Gordon should then contract Welch to get him to Vancouver as soon
as possible to discuss the issue with lawyers present. Upon confession in front of Welch, matters
should be addressed to higher up officials within the company and then brought to the courts if
necessary. Ideally to reduce publicity, time, and money matters of Ross' actions should be
handled outside of court and within the company itself.

Reflection
A decision like this is hard to measure until a problem such as this arises again. Clearly
more regulation needs to be put into each position at the firm with at least two people over seeing
each money transaction. Ross' money stealing habits were way to easy for him to carry out.
Double checking each transaction is vital to prevent this type of behavior in the future. Also
those reporting to employees hired up in the company should have to do so on a weekly basis.
Knowing the decision has been effective will not happen until after all the dust has settle in the
case and the company can assess is popularity within the Vancouver area. Also checking up on
employee moral will be crucial after the case is all said and done to access how the employees
feel about how the process was handled and what steps can be taken moving forward as a
company.

References
Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics. (n.d.). Calculating Consequences: The
Utilitarian Approach to Ethics. Retrieved October 26, 2014, from
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decis ion/calculating.html
Essential Steps for Ethical Problem-Solving. (n.d.). Essential Steps for Ethical Problem-Solving.
Retrieved October 28, 2014, from http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/o epr/steps.asp
Virtue Ethics: an ancient solution to a modern problem. (n.d.). Scientia Salon. Retrieved October 27,
2014, from https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/virtue-ethics-an-ancient-solution-to-amodern-problem/