Search

Two months ago, the American Bar Association House of Delegates adopted a 'recommendation' stating opposition to prosecutors' and other enforcement officials' taking into consideration 'any of the following factors in making a determination of whether an organization has been cooperative in the context of a government investigation: 1) that the organization provided counsel to, or advanced, reimbursed or indemnified the legal fees and expenses of, an Employee; 2) that the organization entered into or continues to operate under a joint defense, information sharing and common interest agreement with an Employee or other represented party with whom the organization believes it has a common interest in defending against the investigation; 3) that the organization shared its records or other historical information relating to the matter under investigation with an Employee; or 4) that the organization chose to retain or otherwise declined to sanction an Employee who exercised his or her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response. This article discusses the recommendation and the events that led to it.

National rulings that may affect your practice.

Rulings you need to know.

You got up yesterday morning and went to the front door of your house to take in the morning newspaper. That's when you saw it. A sealed manila envelope with your name typed on the label. You figured that it must be work-related, so you opened it. When you did, what you saw made your heart jump. Inside was a plain piece of paper with these typed words: <i>'I Know What You Are Doing. Shame On You. Stop The Cheating And The Lies Or I Will Tell The World. You Will Be Disgraced. How Could You Hurt So Many People?'</i>

Many months ago, federal grand subpoenas arrived on your client's door step. Their unexpected arrival and broad scope set off typical alarm bells and suddenly displaced a good deal of ongoing business. Your client immediately turned to you to undertake an investigation of the matter and a response. Your client's Information Services Department swept all electronic databases, and you directed phalanxes of young lawyers to conduct interviews and review documents for responsiveness. Now what?

Judge Lewis Kaplan's eloquent and eminently correct decision striking down the Justice Department's policy embodied in the 'Thompson Memo' that pressures corporations, by threat of indictment, to cut off legal fees to 'culpable' employees, was widely publicized and acclaimed. But it may ultimately produce little change in the real world of white-collar criminal defense.

National rulings you need to know.

Recent key rulings.

A recent decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia limited the reach of the 'reverse false claims' provision of the civil False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. ' 3730(a)(7). This opinion, if followed by other courts, will reduce the risk of civil False Claims Act liability for companies accused of failing to self-report regulatory violations in settings where self-disclosure is required.

The recent indictment of the securities class-action powerhouse Milberg Weiss Bershad &amp; Schulman and two of its named partners has been the topic of much recent discussion, centering on the law firm's notable refusal to waive the attorney-client privilege during the government investigation, which likely contributed to the government's decision to indict the firm. But the indictment is also notable as the latest high-profile use of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes to combat private-sector corruption.