Corporate elites presumed antitrust law was unenforceable against gentlemen.

Evidence

The corporations assumed that their antitrust violations would be handled in the customary, lenient way as “a gentleman’s misdemeanor—and a gentleman was never sent to jail for violating the antitrust law” (Herling, 1962). They further assumed that they would settle on a plea of no contest ( nolo contendere), neither admitting nor disputing the charges against them, and pay a token fine. However, much to their chagrin, they had to deal with Robert A. Bicks, acting U.S. assistant attorney general in charge of the litigation. He had a reputation as a highly knowledgeable, aggressive prosecutor who was reluctant to use the nolo plea on the grounds that it disrespected the law and the public’s desire for justice. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 1403

Categorization

• QUESTION: What made Bicks the exception — why was nolo plea so entrenched that one institutional actor could counter it?
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 1403