Search results

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate in‐house counsel's dual role in the context of a wrongful discharge claim against his corporate employer and its effect on privileged corporate communications.

The paper takes the form of legal research and analysis.

A multipart factors test is proposed focusing on three areas: first, rationale for discharge; second, in‐house counsel's claim; and third, risks to privileged corporate information.

The paper creates new means to evaluate corporate privilege and in‐house counsel access.

With the passage of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002, corporate legal counsel has an increasing responsibility related to fraud. The purpose of this paper is to focus on financial reporting fraud resulting in the false presentation of operating results and financial position to the public, lenders, taxing authorities or other corporate stakeholders.

The paper reviews cases with a focus on financial reporting fraud as identified by corporate counsel.

The ways in which corporations can utilise corporate counsel to protect themselves from financial statement and other reporting frauds.

This paper provides guidance to corporate counsel as to some of the common forms of financial statement fraud and the risk factors (red flags) that may indicate the presence of fraud.

Corporate counsel, by virtue of their natural involvement in the negotiation of contracts and customer/vendor disputes, as well as their consulting role to top management in many types of business transactions and problems, are uniquely positioned to identify financial statement fraud issues and other financial disclosure problems.

This paper seeks to describe and assess recent legal developments that affect the corporate attorney‐client privilege.

Discusses and analyzes the corporate attorney‐client privilege and work product doctrine and the role of such protections in US society; discusses how recent developments including policies of the US Department of Justice and the evolving role of corporate auditors have adversely affected these protections, and shows how some of these developments can be ameliorated so as to preserve the important principles underlying the corporate attorney‐client privilege.

The upsurge of investigations into alleged corporate criminality has reignited the debate over the value of the privilege and the ability to have confidential communications between corporations and clients. Although judicial decisions do not favor adoption of a “selective waiver” doctrine, concerns have also been raised that legislative adoption of a selective waiver in this current culture‐of‐waiver environment may practically prevent companies from ever being able to assert a privilege again in governmental investigations.

A useful update on developments affecting the attorney‐client privilege and work product doctrine from a lawyer who specializes in securities litigation and governmental enforcement and is a member of the New York State Bar Association Task Force on the Attorney Client Privilege as well as Liaison from the Corporate Counsel Consortium to the American Bar Association Task Force on the Attorney Client Privilege.

The corporate disclosure decision is one of the most difficult decisions any corporation, its management and counsel will face. If a corporation learns that it or one of its employees has engaged in a fraud or crime, the corporation, through its officers and directors, must decide whether it should disclose the fraud or crime to the government and, if the decision to disclose is made, what the scope of the disclosure should be. These decisions are fraught with dangers which threaten to expose the corporation and its employees to civil and criminal liability.

Examines the nature and reasons for introducing counselling at British Telecom. Discusses the changes in culture in BT brought about by privatisation, first steps to introducing counselling, the benefits of non‐directive counselling, and the nature of the counselling scheme itself. Surmises that counselling offers the opportunity for both individuals and the company itself to maximise use of their resources.

Whether clients in need of counselling should seek this of their own volition or at the behest of employer/superior/other is debated. The approaches/attitudes which are possible from the standpoint of both counsellor and counselled can vary in the light of the client′s personality and the organisation′s culture/ideology. The scenario ranges from a self‐referred client in a person‐centred setting to a coerced client in an organisationally‐oriented ideology. The former appears to be the ideal subject for counselling, whilst the latter represents the antithesis of normal counselling. In between can fall many permutations of the balance, which renders the counsellor′s job difficult in trying to achieve an outcome acceptable to both organisation and client.

Over the last several decades, virtually all large U.S. law firms have adopted a human capital strategy that emphasizes academic performance and the prestige of the law school attended. Although this focus is rooted more in tradition than in hard empirical evidence that it produces a competitive advantage, the question has long been irrelevant for most law firms because of the perennial rise in profits. If the model is not broken, the adage runs, why fix it? Drawing upon extensive historical and contemporaneous evidence, this essay argues that the limitations of the traditional credentials-based model have been masked by a steady multidecade surge in the demand for corporate legal services. Further, various data and trendlines suggest that the growth in demand for corporate legal services is beginning to flatten out. In the coming years, many large corporate law firms will be in the unfamiliar position of competing over market share. Unlike the relative calm and prosperity of the prior era, their survival will likely depend upon a human capital strategy that asks and answers several basic empirical questions regarding the selection and development of lawyers.

Purpose – Decreasing governmental support means access to legal services for the poor depends upon the interests of private actors controlling the needed resources. Law firms are a major source of resources for non-profit entities providing those services. This chapter examines the nature of that support.Design/methodology/approach – Law firms are guided by self-interest. How this influences their pro bono activities supporting legal services to the poor is explored through a case study of the legal services market in Cook County, IL and Chicago. It draws from: documentary research on over 50 private legal service providers in Cook County; interviews with 31 lawyers participating in the market for legal services in Cook County; and a focus group with 10 lawyers participating in that market.Findings – The interests driving law firm support for legal services do not match the demonstrated areas of greatest legal need or the stated purposes of the non-profit entities receiving that support. Instead, they reflect reasonable firm self-interest in such goals as lawyer training and marketing. Consequently, non-profit entities receiving support must accommodate those goals.Research limitations/implications – This study points to the need for more empirical research into the consequences of the privatization of legal services.Originality/value – Privatization means that some crucial legal needs will never be met, and this study provides an empirical context for the debate over “civil Gideon” – whether there should be a constitutional right to legal representation in civil matters akin to the constitutional right in criminal matters.