Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Franklin Brown, Steven Woghin, Lauren Stevens. All three attorneys rose to the top of the in-house counsel ranks at their companies. All three faced unprecedented challenges when their companies came under federal investigation. Most importantly, all three were accused of obstruction of justice in how they handled their companies' responses to government investigations. As executive vice president and chief legal counsel for Rite-Aid Corp., Brown was accused of attempting to deceive government investigators and the law firm hired to perform an internal investigation into the manipulation of the company's financial statements by coaching witnesses to lie and backdating contracts. Ditto for Woghin, senior vice president and general counsel of Computer Associates International Inc. As vice president and associate general counsel of GlaxoSmithKline, Stevens was accused (but later exonerated at trial) of concealing evidence and making false statements to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigating the company's off-label promotion of Wellbutrin.
In light of these cases, and others, corporate counsel must understand the difference between advocacy and obstruction when facing government investigations.
Laws prohibiting obstruction of justice can be found throughout the U.S. Code, depending on the subject matter and regulatory scheme involved. However, many more commonly used statutes prohibiting obstruction generally reside in the Crimes Code, Chapter 73, 18 U.S.C. Section 1501 et seq. These laws apply to federal proceedings before the judiciary, executive departments/agencies, and Congress and are not limited to criminal investigations. Putting aside the more obvious forms of criminality (such as the use of threats/violence, witness intimidation, and jury tampering), the laws most relevant to corporate counsel guiding the company through a federal investigation are those prohibiting tampering with witnesses and physical evidence.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Businesses have long embraced the use of computer technology in the workplace as a means of improving efficiency and productivity of their operations. In recent years, businesses have incorporated artificial intelligence and other automated and algorithmic technologies into their computer systems. This article provides an overview of the federal regulatory guidance and the state and local rules in place so far and suggests ways in which employers may wish to address these developments with policies and practices to reduce legal risk.
This two-part article dives into the massive shifts AI is bringing to Google Search and SEO and why traditional searches are no longer part of the solution for marketers. It’s not theoretical, it’s happening, and firms that adapt will come out ahead.
For decades, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has been the only law to expressly address privacy for minors’ information other than student data. In the absence of more robust federal requirements, states are stepping in to regulate not only the processing of all minors’ data, but also online platforms used by teens and children.
In an era where the workplace is constantly evolving, law firms face unique challenges and opportunities in facilities management, real estate, and design. Across the industry, firms are reevaluating their office spaces to adapt to hybrid work models, prioritize collaboration, and enhance employee experience. Trends such as flexible seating, technology-driven planning, and the creation of multifunctional spaces are shaping the future of law firm offices.
Protection against unauthorized model distillation is an emerging issue within the longstanding theme of safeguarding intellectual property. This article examines the legal protections available under the current legal framework and explore why patents may serve as a crucial safeguard against unauthorized distillation.