Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

In-House Counsel

By Ty E. Howard and Todd Presnell
October 20, 2016

Internal investigations have always posed vexing issues for in-house counsel. Investigations arise in many different ways. They can involve relatively small, to bet-the-company risks. In-house counsel need to make difficult decisions on matters such as scope and purpose of the investigation, who will conduct the investigation, how costs will be controlled, and the work product that they will generate.

But perhaps the toughest issue pertains to protecting the attorney-client and other applicable privileges. By now, most counsel are familiar with the risks associated with attorneys, whether in-house or outside counsel, interviewing employees. To ensure that the company maintains its attorney-client privilege, and that they do not unintentionally create an attorney-client relationship with the employee, company counsel must give “corporate Miranda” or Upjohn warnings, which take their name from Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981).

Privilege issues in internal investigations rarely end with an appropriate Upjohn warning. Further complications loom, including the effect of disclosure to a governmental agency, the effect of involvement of third-party contractors such as investigators and e-discovery personnel, the appropriateness of conditioning an employee's continued employment on participation and confidentiality, the viability of partial or selective waiver in your jurisdiction, and many others.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.