I totally agree with the moral culpability in this type of case. So much for "protecting the flock". It's more like protecting the corporation. I was questioning whether there would be a significant direct effect, either in terms of lawsuit payments or declining attendance, and I suspect that there just won't be. If anything, I suspect the effect will be long-term in nature, as this type of thing gets media coverage and makes it harder for publishers to bury their heads in the sand and ignore all but what WTS tells them.
NeverKnew - I do agree that they want to shift some liability from the WTS to individual elders. I hope if this happens, some of them open their eyes. But plenty of them will just call it persecution for Jehovah's name if they have to incur personal liability, go broke, delcare bankruptcy and the like. I knew one elder who sustained a serious injury working parking at an assembly when some idiot ran over his leg. He had no health insurance and the policies on his own car insurance and that of the person who hit him weren't enough to cover his medical bills, and he ended up having to sell his house to pay his medical bills and survive. He would rather lose everything then file a lawsuit over it. Bit of a different situation, but still...
I do however, disagree the Conti case somehow sets a precedent that the WTS is on the hook (legally) for any abuse by a MS, or rank and file member, if that's what you are implying. First of all, if the verdict gets upheld (which is no slam dunk), it only sets legal precedent in California. Second, the case isn't a matter of vicarious liability against the WTS (in other words, automatic liability for its adherent's actions, such as exists in the employer/employee context). The WTS had to be found liable for its own acts, which were in connection with the 1989 letter and the elders knowing about the abuser prior to the time he abused Candace. For the reasons discussed in this thread, I think that even if the verdict sticks, to duplicate it you would need a very similar set of facts which is not going to exist in all abuse cases, most notably being that the abuse would have had to take place before the implementation of their legally slick, morally shameful new policy.