Ethics

Brian Leiter describes a remarkable attempt by an aspiring law professor to sabotage a competing applicant's job talk at a major law school.  The perpetrator allegedly sent the competing applicant an email under a pseudonym, which falsely suggested that the Law School where the competing applicant was giving a job talk thought poorly of the applicant's scholarship. Apparently, the email was designed to throw off the applicant so that the applicant would do poorly during the interview.

Through the use of something called a "honeypot," the perpetrator's true identity has now become known to the recipient of the email.  As a result, the email's recipient knows that the perpetrator has since landed a job as a professor at another Law School.

Professor Leiter asks whether the perpetrator's conduct should be reported to the Law School where the perpetrator was hired, which apparently does not know about the misconduct.  A related question for our readers is whether the law professor in question violated Model Rule 8.4(c) and, if so, whether the violation was so egregious that it should trigger a mandatory reporting obligation under Model Rule 8.3(a).  I would say that the people with direct knowledge about what happened do have such an obligation to report.  What do you think?