Abraham Lincoln, open windows and supposed ethical lapses. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025

Saw an excellent article in the Illinois Bar Journal by lawyers Guy Franker and J. Steven Beckett entitled Lawyer Lincoln’s Legacy – Honest Abe on Lawyer Honesty. Their article offered an interesting analysis of a supposed ethical lapse Mr. Lincoln had whilst defending a woman on murder charges. Before going much further, let me state that both Mr. Franker and Mr. Beckett have likely forgotten more about Mr. Lincoln than I will ever know. Similarly, I would wager they have a much more comprehensive understanding of Rules of Professional Conduct than I. But what the hell….

By way of background, in 1857, Lincoln was defending Melissa Goings, a 70 year old woman on murder charges. The case was tried in Metamora, Illinois, outside Peoria. Mr. Goings apparently beat his wife on a fairly regular basis. His last attempt to beat his wife did not end well for him. Melissa decided she had endured enough and grabbed a piece of firewood to protect herself. She struck her husband in the head with the firewood and Mr. Goings died. Ms. Goings was then charged with murder.

The trial, according to the article was presided over by Judge James Harriott. Again, according Mr. Franker and Mr. Beckett, Judge Harriott was doing all he could to insure a Guilty verdict. Lincoln requested a brief recess. He and Melissa walked to a first floor conference room where Melissa requested a drink of water. Lincoln opened a nearby window and advised his client there was good water in Tennessee. Lincoln then made his way back to the Courtroom – alone – and acknowledged that conversation. Not surprisingly, Ms. Goings disappeared. The following year, Lincoln convinced the State’s Attorney to drop the pending charges.

The authors conclude that Lincoln, in effect, abetted the escape of his client. Apart from Lincoln and Ms. Goings, however, no one will ever know precisely what happened in that small conference room. Maybe Lincoln made an off-handed remark that his client misconstrued. Maybe Lincoln left the room for a moment and Melissa scurried out the window. Perhaps Melissa, knowing she was being railroaded, had already decided to flee and was simply looking for the first opportunity. Without more, it seems a bit unfair to suggest Lincoln, on the basis of one remark, facilitated an escape.

The authors then conclude that Lincoln failed to act in the furtherance of justice and had an ethical lapse. And they cite to today’s rules, which, based on my admittedly rudimentary research skills, weren’t committed to writing until the 20th Century.

The year was 1857. Women were still second class citizens and wouldn’t secure the right to vote for another 63 years. Ms. Goings had been regularly abused by her husband. She finally said enough and defended herself – striking her husband just twice, according to court records. Under the current law, it seems unlikely most prosecutors would even consider a murder charge. But in what was then very rural Illinois, a husband lay dead and his wife was holding a bloody piece of wood. That added up to murder and the subsequent trial would amount to window dressing.

To make matters worse, Goings ended up before a judge who had presumptively decided she was guilty. Lincoln’s considerable trials skills were of little use. The death penalty was alive and well in Illinois in 1857. Ms. Goings was likely going to be convicted. And then she would be hanged.

Perhaps Lincoln did open that window. And maybe he did comment on the delicious water in Tennessee. By doing so, he prevented the murder conviction of an elderly, battered woman by a biased judge. And Lincoln saved the life of a woman who didn’t deserve to die. In the preamble to the current Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, there is language that lawyers are supposed to “challenge the rectitude of official action.” Lincoln, always ahead of his time, was doing just that when he cracked that window.

The statute above, in Metamora, Illinois depicts both Lincoln and Goings. It is not often that ethical lapses are memorialized in bronze.

Red Tesla sedan driving on a road.
September 26, 2025
According to online reports, Tesla ignored a $60 million dollar settlement overture in the wrongful death case that ultimately resulted in a $242 million dollar jury verdict against the car maker. The lawsuit grew out of 2019 crash where a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, plowed through a Florida intersection and crashed into a Chevy Tahoe. Neima Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo were standing near the Tahoe when the Tesla crashed into it. Leon was killed and Angulo suffered serious injuries. A lawsuit was filed against Tesla, asserting that although the Autopilot feature was engaged, the vehicle did not brake. Florida law permits a monetary demand to be issued before trial. If the defendant fails to accept the demand within 30 days it is considered rejected. If the plaintiff then goes to trial and secures a verdict 25% greater than the offer, the defendant is on the hook for plaintiff’s investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tesla is appealing the jury verdict, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”.
Johnson's baby powder container, white bottle, blue text, red seal, 400g.
September 26, 2025
This important ruling got kind of lost in the news cycle. A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate a $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict against Johnson & Johnson[“J & J”]. The verdict was originally returned by a Missouri jury in 2018 on behalf of 22 women. The original verdict was actually $4.7 billion but a Missouri Appellate Court reduced the award to $2 billion. Each of the women claimed that there was asbestos and asbestos-laced talc in J & J talcum powder products they used, and they developed ovarian cancer as a result. Asbestos is known to cause cancer. Talc, in its raw form is often found in close proximity to naturally occurring asbestos. When J & J mined talc, that talc sometimes contained asbestos. And that asbestos sometimes found its way into J & J personal hygiene products. [In 2019, J & J recalled 33,000 bottles of J & J products after FDA testing found asbestos in test samples]. J & J, has known of the risk of asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1970’s. Some 21,000 plus ovarian cancer cases are pending against J & J throughout the United States.
Movie poster for
September 26, 2025
Reports today say that DuPont and the State of New Jersey have reached a $2 Billion dollar settlement arising out of DuPont’s release of “forever chemicals” into soil, wetlands and other areas in New Jersey – and then forgetting to clean up the mess they made. The settlement with DuPont is reportedly the largest environmental settlement ever obtained by a state. “Forever chemicals” – also known as PFAS(referring to per and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are man-made chemicals that are used in an extensive variety of products as they are both water and grease-resistant. The chemicals are linked to litany of health problems, including increased risk of certain cancers(kidney, testicular and breast) liver damage, thyroid issues and reproductive problems(such as decreased fertility, low birthweight and developmental problems). NJ.Com is reporting that one of the sites where DuPont created munitions created such significant contamination in the environment that over 300 homes required filters to prevent toxic chemicals from seeping into their homes. The settlement terms provide that DuPont will spend $875 millions cleaning up the contamination and set aside another $125 million to cover other damages that may arise. Additionally, DuPont will also set p a $1.2 billion funding source and reserve fund of $475 million to ensure that even if the company fails to make payments, or goes bankrupt, public funds will not be used. For a stark introduction into the nature of PFAS, check out Dark Waters, a compelling and criminally underrated movie based on the decades old fight waged by attorney Robert Bilott against DuPont for contaminating West Virginia rural communities.