Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Q: I recently received an electronic version of a document from my opponent. It is my understanding that there is a way to “look behind” the visible document sent to me, to discover earlier versions of the document that may have been drafted. This “look-behind” may also reveal who else was sent the document for review, as well as any comments they may have made regarding the document. It seems to me that since my opponent chose to give me the document in this electronic form, it is okay for me to try to discover whatever other information it contains. Is that correct?
A: The New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics recently addressed this very issue, and concluded that the answer is no, it is not permissible to do so. Formal Opinion 749(2002) concludes that using technology to examine electronically received communications from an adversary (or electronically “bugging” and tracing communications sent to an adversary to see where else they are sent) is a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility because it may lead to discovery of confidences and secrets of your adversary's client. This is believed to be the first, and only, ethics opinion on this subject.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.