Randall Lane probably didn’t break the law by accepting $6 million while working at Forbes, but he may still pay a price under a 140-year-old doctrine

Forbes' decision to fire Randall Lane, its former chief content officer, has sparked a debate over the fine line between personal and professional relationships in the workplace. Lane's termination was the result of an undisclosed $6 million payment he received from RJ Shook, the founder of Shook Research, a firm that partnered with Forbes to publish its rankings of top wealth advisers. While the law may not have been broken, Lane's actions may still have consequences under a 140-year-old doctrine.

Background & Context

Randall Lane, 58, worked at Forbes for 15 years, overseeing the magazine's editorial operations since 2017. He was a key figure in the publication's success, and his departure has left a significant void in the company.

The payment in question was made in recognition of Lane's informal advice to Shook, which the two men had been exchanging since their meeting on a Forbes-organized humanitarian trip to Liberia in 2013. Lane described the payment as a personal gift, unconnected to his work at Forbes, but he acknowledged that he should have disclosed it.

Key Details

The payment of $6 million came to light when Shook sold a majority stake in his company to the private equity firm PPC Enterprises last August. PPC's staff discovered the record of the payment while reviewing Shook Research's email correspondence, and they flagged it to Forbes, which confronted Lane in July. He acknowledged the payment and was subsequently fired.

Lane's employment contract with Forbes included a clause requiring staff to seek permission before engaging in outside business activities and barring personal gain from company relationships. However, the question remains whether Lane's actions constituted a breach of his fiduciary duties to the company.

What Experts Say

Richard Friedman, an employment attorney, believes that Forbes was within its rights to fire Lane. "I believe he was properly terminated, based on what I've read," Friedman said. Friedman argues that employee handbooks, like Forbes', can function as binding contracts, and Lane's obligations to the company didn't depend on any handbook at all. "Employees owe fiduciary duties to their employers," Friedman explained, "wholly apart from any contract or handbook."

Key Takeaways

• Lane's actions may not have broken any criminal law, but they may still have consequences under a 140-year-old doctrine.
• The payment was made in recognition of Lane's informal advice to Shook, which the two men had been exchanging since their meeting on a Forbes-organized humanitarian trip to Liberia in 2013.
• Lane's employment contract with Forbes included a clause requiring staff to seek permission before engaging in outside business activities and barring personal gain from company relationships.
• The question remains whether Lane's actions constituted a breach of his fiduciary duties to the company.

What This Means For You

For everyday readers, this situation highlights the importance of transparency and disclosure in the workplace. While Lane's actions may not have been illegal, they still had consequences under a 140-year-old doctrine. This serves as a reminder that employees must remain loyal to their employers and avoid conflicts of interest, even if they are not explicitly outlined in their contracts.

As we navigate the complex landscape of employment law, it's essential to understand the fine line between personal and professional relationships. This case serves as a cautionary tale, reminding us that our actions in the workplace can have significant consequences, even if they don't break any laws.