Internal discussions among Orrick’s chief legal officer and other firm lawyers about a conflict of interest remain privileged under federal common law, a federal magistrate judge for the Northern District of California has held, in quashing a third-party subpoena directed to the firm — even though the firm still represented the client at the time of the discussions. The opinion is the latest in the line of federal and state cases that have been developing a jurisprudence of law-firm privilege.
Continue Reading Privilege shields internal firm discussions about conflict, N.D. Cal. magistrate rules
Fired GC fends off dismissal of retaliation claim, can sue individual director, says district court
A fired GC of a public company recently fended off dismissal of his whistle-blower retaliation claims in California district court. Adding to a split in authority, the chief magistrate judge for the Northern District of California held (1) that the protections of the Dodd-Frank Act applied even though the GC made his report internally, and
Disloyal GC’s can be required to disgorge salary, says NJ high court — even if no economic harm
In most houses, Halloween lasts until the kids eat that last candy bar — saving it from their parents’ grasp. So I don’t think it’s too late to spotlight a case that’s bound to scare in-house counsel, in which the New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled that the remedy of disgorgement can be applied to
Unauthorized practice — a continuing risk for unregistered in-house lawyers
We’ve written before to remind in-house lawyers that even if you don’t sign pleadings or appear in court on behalf of your corporate employer, you are still practicing law when you give advice and participate in business transactions on your employer’s behalf. If you do so without being duly licensed, you are straying into unauthorized
More lessons from the trenches: GC’s can face challenges when managers by-pass law department
Here is the second in our series of interviews with general counsel from a variety of organizations, who share their lessons from the trenches. You can read the first installment here.
Deal documentation quandary
What should general counsel do when a manager by-passes the legal department in negotiating transaction terms with another party —
Lesson from the trenches: Playing ostrich is no option for general counsel
Every year, the Association of Corporate Counsel takes the temperature of inside counsel practice by surveying general counsel and chief legal officers across a wide number of sectors. Unsurprisingly, the 2015 survey, with nearly 1,300 respondents, put ethics and compliance at the top of the list of chief legal officer concerns, together with data
Seventy-four amicus firms weigh in to support in-house firm counsel privilege
We posted here about the in-house firm counsel privilege, and the New York case that held late last year that the privilege didn’t apply where a malpractice plaintiff was seeking to discover all relevant communications of his former lawyers.
The opinion in Stock v. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP is in the New York
No privilege for communications by risk manager who was also a lawyer
Corporate organization
charts increasingly include slots for departments with names like “risk management,” “claims handling,” and the like. When lawyers head or staff such departments, does the attorney-client privilege cover their communications with company management? Not necessarily, says a new opinion from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Casey v. Unitek Global Services, Inc.
Sex discrimination
In-house firm counsel privilege — will the favorable trend continue?
Two trial courts — in New York and New Hampshire — recently weighed in on the in-house firm counsel privilege. The New Hampshire Superior Court, in Moore v. Grau, recognized the parameters of the privilege. In contrast, the New York County Commercial Division judge in Stock v. Shnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP ruled
Licensing requirements trip up in-house lawyer
Small lapses can sometimes snowball into big problems, as an in-house Pennsylvania lawyer for a large pharmaceutical company found out when she was suspended for six months for the unauthorized practice of law.
The lawyer failed to comply with her yearly continuing-legal-education requirements; as a result, she was placed on inactive status in 2009,