You may be on spring break or not subscribe to that pink paper from across the pond, and so have missed Frank Partnoy's op-ed today in the Financial Times about Greg Smith.
I can see principled arguments for going either direction. For 1) distinguishing the fiduciary relationship where duties are owed from the every-man-for-himself counterparty relationship, where bare honesty is all that's required. Or for 2) saying counterparties deserve fiduciary protection as well, meriting the punctilios of an honor the most sensitive, no way no how is "accurate disclosure" the sum total of the duty owed. Partnoy's incisive point is well taken, it seems to me: we need to be clear about whom we're speaking when we talk about clients.
I am reminded of something Justice Franfurter once said: "[T]o say that a man is a fiduciary only begins analysis; it gives direction to further inquiry. To whom is he a fiduciary? What obligations does he owe as a fiduciary? In what respect has he failed to discharge these obligations? And what are the consequences of his deviation from duty?"
