Question

John Verble worked as a financial advisor for Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC. After nearly seven years, Verble was fired. He filed a suit in a federal district court against his ex-employer. In his complaint, Verble alleged that he had learned of illegal activity by Morgan Stanley and its clients. He claimed that he had reported the activity to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and that he was fired in retaliation. His complaint contained no additional facts.

[Verble v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, 676 Fed.Appx. 421 (6th Cor. 2017)]
Answer the Following
To avoid dismissal of his suit, does Verble have a legal obligation to support his claims with more facts? Explain.
Does Verble owe an ethical duty to back up his claims with more facts? Use the IDDR approach to express your answer.

Answer 1

To avoid dismissal of his suit, John Verble has a legal obligation to support his claims with more facts. He also owes an ethical duty to back up his claims with more facts using the IDDR approach.

Step-by-step explanation:

To avoid dismissal of his suit, John Verble does have a legal obligation to support his claims with more facts. In the legal system, a complaint must contain enough factual information to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Without additional facts, Verble's complaint may be considered too vague or speculative, and thus subject to dismissal.

Additionally, Verble owes an ethical duty to back up his claims with more facts. The IDDR approach (Inquiry, Debate, Decision, and Responsibility) emphasizes the importance of providing reliable evidence to support one's claims. As an ethical principle, it is expected that Verble would gather and present sufficient evidence to support his allegations of illegal activity and retaliation.