Features
Jeffrey L. Bornstein
Much has been written recently about the government's continued insistence, in both criminal and SEC enforcement investigations, that corporations waive the attorney-client privilege in order to 'fully cooperate' with the government. This pressure has been augmented by the increasing reluctance of auditors for public companies to sign off on their audits unless they review the client's internal investigatory report ' an act that also may cause waiver of the privilege. See, In re: Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on Willkie Farr & Gallagher, (1997 WL 118369 (SDNY 1997)). What has received less attention is the countervailing pressure for truth and candor toward prospective witnesses, not only by government attorneys in the context of parallel criminal and civil investigations, but also by private attorneys when conducting corporate internal investigations.<br>The increased likelihood in the post Sarbanes-Oxley world that a corporation will waive the privilege and produce the substance of its internal investigation, including its investigative reports, needs to be juxtaposed with the duty to be honest with a corporation's employees when conducting an internal investigation. The relationship of these two duties raises serious doubt that the standard Upjohn warnings ' ie, we represent the company, our conversation is privileged, but the company may 'waive' the privilege in its sole discretion ' is consistent with the reasonable expectations of employees and a lawyer's ethical duty to be honest and candid.
Steven B. Katz
&
Patricia a. Kinaga
On May 30, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in <i>Garcetti v. Ceballos</i>, 2006 WL 1458026, 24 IER Cases 737, that public employees do not enjoy First Amendment protections when speaking in the course of their official duties. While drawing strong reactions as a restriction on the free speech rights of government whistleblowers, the ruling may also be viewed in a different light ' as giving public whistleblowers the same rights as private ones.
Features
Jason Park
Most companies have taken care to ensure that new and departing employees have completed Human Resource files with nondisclosure agreements, non-competition agreements (where applicable), invention and assignment agreements and various other agreements, acknowledgements and forms. Are companies doing enough to protect themselves from intellectual property theft by departing employees and consultants?
Features
George Wood
With increasingly longer military leaves (since 2001, the National Guard's deployment policy has shifted from a 6-month to a 24-month maximum service overseas), companies must understand their legal obligations under military leave laws, specifically the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Employers must be aware of what happens before, during and after their employees take military leave.
Features
Leigh Jones
In a February <i>A&FP</i> article titled 'Associate Overcompensation?' I ventured the opinion that competition for the most promising new associates was perhaps needlessly intense, given that law firms aren't very good at identifying which law school graduates actually will turn into excellent lawyers. The following interesting report seems to invite essentially the same question with regard to law student summer associates.
ALM Reporters
&
Joe Danowsky
As analyzed in several <i>A&FP</i> articles, a major strategic goal of many law firms is to attain and maintain dominance for specific practice areas in a legal market. One downside of dominance in a practice area, however, is that a firm may increasingly need to turn away work in other practice areas due to client conflicts.<br>From the following excerpts of recent news analyses from <i>A&FP</i>'s ALM affiliates, it seems reasonable to conjecture that conflict-related attorney movements between firms help maintain a healthy level of competition in legal services that excessive dominance might otherwise undermine.
Suzanne Ilene Schiller
&
Monica Mathews
<i>A&FP</i> articles in March and April discussed how various 'boilerplate' clauses in a commercial lease may one-sidedly favor the landlord or tenant. The present article emphasizes the need to ensure that the force majeure clause in particular protects vital interests in the event of a major catastrophe. Whether your firm is a tenant or landlord, you'll want to take a close look, first at this article and then at your lease.
Joe Danowsky
Industry analysts often debate implementation details of various standards, but more critical attention should be focused on whether entire standardization programs are well conceived. This article offers some lines of thought that readers may find useful in deciding their overall response to a standardization proposal.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
National rulings you need to know.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Recent rulings of interest.
