Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Corporate CounselorKickerFeaturesSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Pens in the Board Room

By Sean T. Prosser and Amy M. Roebuck
February 01, 2004

“But these are my personal notes ….” Virtually every litigator has heard this plea from an executive responding to discovery. It is an almost reflexive reaction stemming from the popular myth that “personal” somehow equals “protected,” and often comes from the most sophisticated of corporate directors and high-level management. Too often lawyers hear executives boast about their note-taking prowess while pointing to rows and rows of historical notebooks that they assembled over the years. Many executives learn too late that very little of their “personal” board meeting notes are privileged, and the privilege that might attach to some portions does not even belong to them. More and more frequently in this post-Enron environment, privileged materials are being disclosed by the owner of the privilege ' the corporation ' due to stricter standards for company cooperation in government investigations, particularly in civil investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and criminal inquiries by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

The likely discoverability of personal meeting notes can create serious and unexpected litigation exposure. In response to this risk, directors are becoming increasingly reluctant to take any notes at all during meetings. This zero-sum response, however, may not be the best response for directors who want to personally document their diligence or who simply take notes out of personal preference and habit. Counsel can help satisfy these goals while also minimizing unnecessary litigation risks by creating and enforcing a controlled note-taking and Board minute policy for Board meetings.

Privilege Parameters

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?