Employers and Employees
When I entered law practice in 1971, it was common in corporate criminal investigations for a single law firm to represent the target corporation and all its relevant employees. They hung together lest they hang separately. Over time, practice changed, and such joint-representation arrangements mostly disappeared. The old paradigm was succeeded by a new one, which recognized the separate interests of the corporation and each of its relevant employees, but also provided a large measure of mutual support and good will on the defense side. This paradigm, too, has been attacked by prosecutors and now has largely disappeared in major federal and some state investigations. It has been succeeded by a new, far harsher paradigm.
'You've Got Mail' But Is It Privileged?
E-mail evidence is one of the newest and sharpest arrows in the government's quiver. In recent years the government has won several convictions based on little more than damning e-mail evidence. Nonetheless, people continue to use e-mail casually or even thoughtlessly, producing a data stream of potential admissions. To make matters worse, with the proliferation of portable e-mail devices, such as the ubiquitous Blackberry, the attention paid to each e-mail diminishes while the amount sent rises dramatically.
Employee Blogging: What Employers Don't Know Could Hurt Them
According to an American Management Association 2005 survey of 536 employers, 84% of companies have established policies relating to personal e-mail use, and 81% have established policies relating to personal Internet use, but only 23% have policies on personal postings on corporate blogs. <br>This article discusses blogging and the potential for employer liability that employee blogging presents. It recommends that employers establish blogging policies so that such liability hopefully may be avoided.
The Fifth Amendment, Vicarious Liability, and the Attorney-Client Privilege
Waiver of the attorney-client privilege by corporations "cooperating" with the government during investigations of alleged misconduct has become an issue of increasing concern within the legal community. Current U.S. Department of Justice policy, as set forth in a document entitled "Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations" (dated Jan. 20, 2003, sets forth a number of factors that federal prosecutors should consider when contemplating whether or not to criminally charge a corporation. It clearly states that "[g]enerally, prosecutors should apply the same factors in determining whether to charge a corporation as they do with respect to individuals." This policy statement goes on, however, to note that "due to the nature of the corporate 'person,' some additional factors are present," including "[t]he corporation's timely and voluntary disclosure of wrongdoing and its willingness to cooperate in the investigation of its agents, including, if necessary, the waiver of the corporate attorney-client privilege and work-product protection."
The Government's Evolving Position on Privilege
As recently as 6 months ago, many commentators were proclaiming the demise of the attorney-client privilege and work product protection in the context of corporate internal investigations. It now appears that these predictions were premature. Law enforcement officials are becoming more sensitive to the legitimate reasons for protecting a corporation's ability to assert these privileges. Although, from the viewpoint of business, there's still a long way to go, companies have reason to be hopeful.
'Just Trust Me'
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has publicly defended himself against allegations of insider trading by insisting that he was not aware of inside information when he sold his stock in Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), the hospital chain founded by his father and brother. He has also stated, numerous times since his election to the Senate, that because his HCA securities were in a "qualified blind trust," he could not even be certain about the extent of his holdings at any given time. Frist's civil and criminal exposure under the securities laws is likely to turn on interpretations of SEC Rule 10b5-1, which addresses trading "on the basis of" material nonpublic information in insider trading cases.
Never the Twain Shall Meet?
The June 2005 acquittal of HealthSouth founder and Chief Executive Officer Richard M. Scrushy on all charges in a high-profile federal corporate fraud prosecution was widely considered a surprising setback for the Department of Justice (DOJ). But even before the final acquittals in Scrushy, the trial judge's finding that the government's civil and criminal investigations had "improperly merged" resulted in the suppression of Scrushy's SEC deposition and the dismissal of three perjury charges based upon that testimony. <i>United States v. Scrushy</i>, 366 F. Supp.2d 1134, 1137 (N.D.Ala. 2005). Judge Karon Bowdre's decision provides an opportunity to review the law governing the proper conduct of parallel proceedings, and to ask when co-operation between civil enforcement and prosecutorial authorities contravenes those standards.
