In-house probes reveal liabilities; counsel should ensure that all privileges are preserved when conducting investigations

Article Abstract:

Corporations may want to conduct offenses of possible environmental crimes in order to assess a problem but should try to protect internal reports with the attorney-client and work-product privileges. Disclosure of the report may constitute a waiver and the report may then be available to other government agencies. At least a dozen states protecting audits to some degree, but these are opposed by the EPA, which has its own policy giving limited protection. Almost all state laws give limited protection for information about civil offenses, but deny it for information about criminal acts.

Corporations, Offenses against the environment, Environmental crimes, Work product privilege (Law)

---

Allegations of misdeeds call for caution; when a company is under criminal investigation, counsel must react swiftly but also need to avoid ethical violations

Article Abstract:

The article suggests rules for corporate counsel to follow when advising employees under investigation for corporate misdeeds. They should advise employees they interview that their only client is the company if they have any cause to believe these employees have personal liability for the misdeeds, avoid representing employees together with the corporation before making sure conflicts rules can be satisfied, and take immediate steps to protect the company's records.

Conflict of interests (Attorneys), Conflicts of interest (Lawyers), Criminal liability of juristic persons, Juristic persons criminal liability

---

Wearing two hats: one more headache? Privilege gets hazy for counsel who give legal and business advice to corporate clients

Article Abstract:

The application of the attorney-client privilege to corporate counsel is discussed, given the dual roles of in-house counsel as both counsel to and employee of the corporation. The control group test and the subject matter test are both used by courts to decide which corporate employees counsel may have privileged communications with. Case law is discussed.

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Compromising confidences: recent court rulings weaken privileges protecting private communications. Walk through history in legal London; barrister's guidebook to Inns of Court district speaks to shared heritage
• Abstracts: States may not claim immunity in patent cases; a New Jersey federal court rules that states can be held liable for patent infringement
• Abstracts: Drawing a fine ethical line: is it creative or cunning? Counsel who use demonstratives must zealously advocate their clients' interests but stay within the boundaries of the truth
• Abstracts: The states' rights cases provoke fire; the cases do venture into new constitutional territory, but the issues are still developing
• Abstracts: Noncompete clauses face uphill fight; firms test ethics rules in trying to box in ex-partners. Are noncompete clauses kaput? In an emerging trend, states may follow California's policy favoring open competition

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.