Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Product Liability Law & StrategyKickerFeaturesSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Counseling the Counselors

By Ronald J. Levine, Sharon A. O'Shaughnessy and Briana Rose Pigott
September 02, 2015

In the wake of recent product liability firestorms, there has been a heightened emphasis on corporate accountability. The actions of officers, directors and even corporate professionals are being more closely scrutinized than ever before, and in this climate, the personal liability risk of in-house counsel has increased exponentially. Because in-house attorneys must necessarily hover between multiple roles on a daily basis, including attorney, businessperson, investigator, and compliance officer (to name a few), these individuals are especially susceptible to heightened liability exposure. A variety of potential liability theories ' such as professional malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims ' may be pursued against in-house counsel by the corporation, its shareholders, and members of the public, as well as by governmental authorities.

Further complicating matters is the Responsible Corporate Officer (RCO) doctrine, which has gained serious traction in recent years. This doctrine allows civil and criminal liability to be strictly imposed on corporate employees for violations of law that occurred during their tenure if they had the power, by virtue of their position, to prevent or correct violations of law but failed to do so ' regardless of whether such employees had individual intent, awareness of the wrongdoing, or direct involvement in the misconduct. Often described as “the crime of doing nothing,” the RCO doctrine raises the possibility that personal liability for a corporation's misdeeds may be imposed on an in-house attorney based on nothing more than the attorney's position at the corporation.

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
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing Image

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.