Internal Investigations: <i>Upjohn</i> Warnings Are No Longer Enough
June 28, 2006
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.
Whistle(Blowing) While You Work
June 28, 2006
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.
Departing Employees
June 28, 2006
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?
What Every Company Needs to Know About Military Leave
June 28, 2006
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.
An Employer's Guide to Conducting Internal Investigations
June 28, 2006
Disgruntled employees raise issues every day, and every day employers respond by conducting some type of internal investigation. To warrant an immediate and thorough internal investigation, employee complaints need not be in writing or 'formally' made. The key ingredient in any investigation is preparation.
Executive Compensation: It's Hot and About to Get Hotter
June 28, 2006
With the Enron (Lay/Skilling) trial having concluded and the business community eagerly anticipating more reports recommending SOX ' 404 relief for smaller companies, executive compensation issues seem far removed, except for the occasional (or not so occasional) headline. Don't be lulled, however, into a false sense of security. Executive compensation is about to take center stage as THE latest 'corporate governance' topic.
Is Half a Summer Associate Better Than None?
June 28, 2006
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.
Europe's Reaction Against the SOX Anonymous Whistleblowing Rule
June 28, 2006
Watching the reaction of European data protection authorities to the anonymous whistleblower requirement set forth in ' 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) has been like watching an ongoing heavyweight prize fight. In one corner, representing the U.S. and its recent history of corporate frauds, stands the SOX champion determined to use all means to prevent future frauds. In the other corner, representing Europe's 20th-century history, which unfortunately includes use of anonymous 'informants' to 'denounce' and silence or kill opponents of repressive regimes in Germany, France and elsewhere, stands the European Union (EU) data protection champion resolved to protect what Europeans view as the fundamental human right of privacy. The SOX and EU champions have exchanged blows, neither has given up much ground, and the match appears to be headed into the late rounds. The audience of multinational corporations required to comply with both SOX and EU data protection laws can only watch, do their best to implement anonymous whistleblower mechanisms in compliance with both SOX and EU privacy law, and wait until the contest is ultimately decided.
