Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Yates Memo, Corporate Cooperation and Attorney-Client Privilege
On Sept. 9, 2015, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates issued a memorandum titled “Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing” (the “Yates Memo”). It announced the DOJ's corporate cooperation policy requiring disclosure of “all relevant facts about individual[s]” before the DOJ will consider awarding the company any credit for cooperation that may reduce the company's civil or criminal penalties. The Yates Memo mandated that federal prosecutors follow certain guiding principles, including: 1) focusing on individuals, from the inception of the government investigation, regardless of whether the investigation is civil or criminal; 2) increasing collaboration between fellow civil and criminal DOJ attorneys; 3) ensuring that no resolution of a corporate investigation should protect individuals from liability, absent extraordinary circumstances; 4) providing a clear plan to resolve individual cases before the statute of limitations expires; and 5) for civil DOJ attorneys, focusing on individuals, regardless of their ability to pay.
Even though the Yates Memo proclaims that it does not change existing DOJ policy, it raises concerns about the DOJ's view of the attorney-client privilege. On Nov. 16, 2015, in a speech in Washington DC, Yates explained that companies seeking cooperation credit “must provide all non-privileged information about individual wrongdoing.” (Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates, Remarks at American Banking Association and American Bar Association Money Laundering Enforcement Conference (Nov. 16, 2015)). She commented that companies are not required to waive the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine for interview memos to receive cooperation credit. However, Yates emphasized that to “earn cooperation credit, the corporation does need to produce all relevant facts ' including the facts learned through those interviews ' unless identical information has already been provided.” Id.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance 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
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.
Law Firms are Reducing Redundant Real Estate by Bringing Support Services Back to the Office
A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.
Bit Parts
Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights
Risks of “Baseball Arbitration” in Resolving Real Estate Disputes
“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.
Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel
'Disconnect Between In-House and Outside Counsel is a continuation of the discussion of client expectations and the disconnect that often occurs. And although the outside attorneys should be pursuing how inside-counsel actually think, inside counsel should make an effort to impart this information without waiting to be asked.