Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Law Firm Financial Impropriety
Funds can come up missing in any law firm, and the cause can be intentional theft that qualifies as fraud or embezzlement, or an unintentional mistake that shows poor judgment. Lawyers and law firm staff can be involved in either case, but when dishonest conduct is committed by others in the firm, the lawyers are still themselves ethically responsible. Various factors make law firms susceptible to such problems: part-time lawyer management, lawyers' lack of business competency, and decentralized authority to bill clients and approve disbursements.
Theoretically, financial impropriety should not be an issue in a firm that adheres to accepted ethical standards. For lawyers, ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 prohibits any “criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer” as well as “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” The Rules are equally clear for staff: The commentary on Rule 5.3 notes that “a lawyer must give ' assistants appropriate instruction and supervision concerning the ethical aspects of their employment.” However, in an accounting sense, deviations from the straight and narrow by lawyers or staff can happen in any firm. Consider the two scenarios mentioned above: intentional theft and unintentional mistake.
This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
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.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
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.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
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.
Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
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.