{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020584329349269587, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.00398406374502, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Professor Simon on the Kaye Scholer Affair: Shock at the Gambling at Rick's Place in Casablanca

In this issue of Law & Social Inquiry, Professor William Simon makes a somewhat belated, but highly valuable contribution to the literature on what he calls the Kaye Scholer "affair." By the phrase Kaye Scholer affair, Simon refers to Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays, and Handlers' representation of Charles Keating and his banking empire during the heady days when savings and loan institutions broke free of all vestiges of regulatory supervision and appeared to control not only their regulators, but most of the legal and political community inside the Washington Beltway. The results were not pretty, as mismanagement and imprudent risk taking eventually led to the collapse of the savings and loan industry, the bankruptcy of its federally managed insurance system, and massive losses to U.S. taxpayers. In his interesting comment, Simon points out, correctly, that nobody in the legal profession appears to have bothered to confront the ethical issues raised by the case. In this comment I argue that only a highly romanticized view of the legal profession could cause Simon to be surprised by the response of the legal profession. Of course the legal profession was more selfprotective than self-regulatory. It seems overly idealistic of Simon to find this remarkable. The excessive idealism of Simon's aspirational view of the legal profession is matched only by his lack of recognition of the extent to