Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
1
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality
May 4, 2012
Presented byPeter L. Blacklock, Esq.
Elliot A. Hallak, Esq.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
2
Fox Rothschild LLP A Full-Service National Law Firm with
Offices in:PRINCETON, NJROSELAND, NJSAN FRANCISCO, CASTANFORD, CTWARRINGTON, PAWASHINGTON, D.C.WEST PALM BEACH, FLWILMINGTON, DE
ATLANTIC CITY, NJBLUE BELL, PAEXTON, PALAS VEGAS, NVLOS ANGELES, CANEW YORK, NYPHILADELPHIA, PAPITTSBURGH, PA
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs.
Reality
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
3
Admissions / Licensing Internal Investigations Privilege Social Media
Agenda
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs.
Reality
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
4
Admissions/Licensing
ABA Model Rules of Professional ConductRule 5.5 Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multi-jurisdictional Practice of Law
(d) A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services in this jurisdiction that:(1) are provided to the lawyer’s employer or its organizational affiliates and are not services for which the forum requires pro hac vice admission; or
(2) are services that the lawyer is authorized to provide by federal law or other law of this jurisdiction.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
5
Admissions/Licensing
Rules Regulating The Florida BarRule 17 - Authorized House Counsel Rule
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
6
Admissions/Licensing
(1) the giving of legal advice to the directors, officers, employees, and agents of the business organization with respect to its business and affairs;
(2) negotiating and documenting all matters for the business organization; and
(3) representation of the business organization in its dealings with any administrative agency or commission having jurisdiction; provided however, authorized house counsel shall not be
permitted to make appearances as counsel in any court, administrative tribunal, agency, or commission situated in the state of Florida unless the rules governing such court or body shall
otherwise authorize, or the attorney is specially admitted by such court or body in a case.
a) Authorized Activities. An authorized house counsel, as an employee of a
business organization, may provide legal services in the state of Florida to the business organization for which a registration pursuant to rule 17-1.4 is effective, provided, however, that such activities shall be limited to:
Florida Rule 17-1.3 Activities
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
7
Admissions/Licensing
Florida Rule 17-1.3 Activities(b) Disclosure. In any communication with individuals/organizations outside
of the business organization, authorized house counsel shall disclose that they are not licensed to practice law in the state of Florida. If the communication is in writing, authorized house counsel shall disclose in writing the name of the business organization, their title or function, and that they are not licensed to practice law in the state of Florida. For
example, the disclosure may state "J. Doe, XYZ Corporation, Authorized House Counsel, member …..(name of other state bar).…. only or not a member of The Florida Bar." In performing activities under this
subdivision, authorized house counsel shall not represent themselves to be members of The Florida Bar licensed to practice law in this state.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
8
Admissions/Licensing
Florida Rule 17-1.4
(a) Filing with The Florida Bar. The following shall be filed with The Florida Bar by an individual seeking to be certified as authorized house counsel:
(1) A certificate from an entity governing the practice of law in all United States jurisdictions in which the registrant is licensed to practice law certifying that the registrant is in active status and is a member in good standing; or is in inactive status. If in inactive status, the certificate must certify that the registrant is in voluntary inactive status and was not placed
on inactive status involuntarily. If available, the registrant must provide a certificate of good standing in addition to the certificate regarding the registrant's inactive status.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
9
Admissions/Licensing
Florida Rule 17-1.4 (a) (continued)
(2) a sworn statement by the registrant that the registrant:
(A) has read and is familiar with chapters 4 and 17 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar as adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida and will abide by the provisions thereof;
(B) submits to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida for disciplinary purposes, as defined in chapter 3 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and rule 17-1.6 herein, and authorizes notification to or from the entity governing the practice of law of each state, territory, or the District of Columbia in which the registrant is licensed to practice law of any disciplinary action taken against the registrant; and
(C) is not subject to a disciplinary proceeding or outstanding order of reprimand, censure, or disbarment, permanent or temporary, for professional misconduct by the bar or courts of any jurisdiction and has not been permanently denied admission to practice before the bar of any jurisdiction based upon such person’s character or fitness
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
10
Admissions/Licensing
Florida Rule 17-1.4(b) Filing with The Florida Bar (continued)
(3) a certificate from a business organization certifying that: it is qualified as set forth in subdivision (b) of rule 17-1.2; that it is aware that the registrant is not licensed to practice in Florida; and it is not relying upon The Florida Bar in any manner in employing the authorized house counsel;
(4) an appropriate registration application to The Florida Bar as promulgated by the executive director of The Florida Bar; and
(5) an appropriate remittance of a filing fee prescribed and set by the executive director of The Florida Bar in an amount not to exceed the amount applicable for admission to the bar examination for an attorney licensed in a state other than Florida.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
11
Admissions/Licensing
ABA Rule 5.5(a-b)Unauthorized Practice Of Law;
Multijurisdictional Practice Of Law
(a) A lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in
doing so.
(b) A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction shall not:(1) except as authorized by these Rules or other law, establish an office or other
systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law; or
(2) hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted topractice law in this jurisdiction.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
12
Admissions/Licensing
Florida Rule 4-5.5 Unauthorized Practice Of Law;
Multijurisdictional Practice Of Law
(a) Practice of Law. A lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction other than the lawyer’s home state, in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in the lawyer’s home state or assist another in doing so.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
13
Admissions/Licensing
Florida Rule 4-5.5
(b) Prohibited Conduct. A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in Florida shall not:
(1) except as authorized by other law, establish an office or other regular presence in Florida for the practice of law;
(2) hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in Florida; or
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
14
Admissions/Licensing
Florida Rule 4-5.5
(b) Prohibited Conduct (continued). A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in Florida shall not:
3) appear in court, before an administrative agency, or before any other tribunal unless authorized to do so by the court, administrative agency, or tribunal pursuant to the applicable rules of the court, administrative agency,
or tribunal.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
15
Admissions/Licensing
Gucci America, Inc. v. Guess?, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65871 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2010)
“An essential element of the attorney-client privilege, under any standard, is that an attorney participates in the communication. An attorney is one who is ‘admitted to the bar of a state or federal court.’ Moreover, the ‘[bar] membership must be of a type that licenses one to practice law.’ Thus, the attorney-client privilege contemplates that the client communicate with an individual who is not simply trained in the law, but actually authorized to engage in the practice of law.” [citations omitted]
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
16
Admissions/LicensingGeorgia-Pacific Plywood Company v. United States Plywood Corporation, 18 F.R.D. 463 (S.D.N.Y. 1956) (corporate general counsel officed in NY, but licensed in PA and D.C., was a lawyer for privilege purposes)
Renfield Corp. v. E. Remy Martin & Co., S.A., 98 F.R.D. 442 (D. Del. 1982) (privilege upheld in communication with in-house counsel in France even where such communications would not be privileged in France)
Florida Marlins Baseball Club, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, 900 a) So. 2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (active membership in MO, sufficient to maintain privilege)
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
17
Admissions/Licensing
Attorney 1 – G.C. of Subsidiary “B”
Subsidiary “B”
Attorney’s 2 – G.C. of Parent “A”
Parent “A”
Acquisition Candidate “C”
Subsidiary “B” – DE LLC
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
18
Proliferation of Claims
By Government
By Receivers and Trustees
By Aggressive Plaintiffs’ Bar
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
19
The Internal Investigation
When do you initiate an internal investigation?- When you have a credible violation of the
law or company policy that has or can cause substantial injury to the corporation
Err on the side of caution - If you think an investigation might be
necessary, it probably is
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
20
Who Conducts Investigation
Inside counsel vs. outside counsel
Combination of both
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
21
Independence Is Key
In-house counsel may be perceived as being less independent
In-house counsel generally perceived as more motivated to try to protect the company
Having outside counsel generally ensures that people doing the investigating are not the same people involved in the wrongdoing
In-house counsel have own biases
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
22
Advantages of In-House Counsel
In-house counsel know the people, industry, and business
Greater confidentiality In-house counsel can command more
cooperation from employees
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
23
Selecting Outside Counsel
Outside counsel should have sufficient trial and interviewing experience
Must be independent Must be able to give unbiased
assessment Must be able to stand up to company
management Must be able to establish good rapport
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
24
Timing and Resources
Thoroughness Poor investigation worse than none at all Poor Investigations may:
- Expose the company to bad publicity- Give perception that the company does not
take claims of misconduct seriously - Harsher treatment from
government/regulators- Increase likelihood of civil actions
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
25
Timing
Need to act swiftly
Goal is to immediately identify, stop, and correct any misconduct
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
26
Cost
Internal investigations are expensive, particularly if outside counsel are used
However, may be cheaper in the long run- Seaboard Doctrine: Credit for self-policing
and self-reporting
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
27
Scope of Investigation
Outline the scope of the investigation from the outset
Be flexible and prepared to adapt to change Identify witnesses and preserve documents Issue preservation memorandums to
witnesses to preserve all records, particularly electronically stored information
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
28
Interviews
Interviewer must give Corporate Miranda/Upjohn Warnings:- Counsel is conducting an investigation on behalf of
entity- Purpose of investigation to provide legal advice to entity- Counsel represents the entity and not any individual
employee- The employee may seek independent representation - Any information disclosed to counsel may not be
protected by the attorney-client privilege and may be disclosed to the corporation or to third parties at the entity's discretion
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
29
Interviews
Have a second person at interview
Immediately write interview memorandums
Avoid taping the interview
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
30
Document Preservation
Electronically Stored Information (ESI)
Lawyers today must be competent in lawyering and in computer technology
Paper discovery is a thing of the past
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
31
Spoliation
Companies need effective document retention policies
Halt destruction of any relevant evidence as soon as you receive notice of a potential claim
Have written agreements in place with outside vendors regarding preservation and confidentiality of data
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
32
Outside Vendor Agreements
Agreement with outside vendor should cover:- Handling of confidential client information- Retrieval of Data- Security policies regarding access to
confidential information - The Vendor’s backup procedures- Destruction of documents
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
33
Consequences for Spoliation
If you are party to a lawsuit:- Monetary sanctions - Striking of pleadings - Evidence preclusion - Adverse inference jury instruction
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
34
Third-Party Cause of Action for Spoliation of Evidence
Third-Party cause of action exists in Florida for spoliation of evidence- The Plaintiff need not prove that he would
have won the case if the evidence were preserved, but only that the destruction of evidence cost him or her an opportunity to prove his or her lawsuit.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
35
Avoiding Crisis
Be proactive
Have adequate written policies in place to ensure that employees are encouraged to and do raise concerns through appropriate channels
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
36
Company Policies
Policies should consider:- To whom concerns should be raised- Provide alternate person to raise concerns to if primary person
is the person accused of committing the wrongdoing- Form of the communication – written v. oral- Actions that will be taken if retaliation against reporting
employee- Consequences of false reporting- Confidentiality/Anonymous reporting- How to handle reports that become public (e.g. – person
wants to remain confidential/anonymous, but needs to testify in court)
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
37
Preserving Privilege in Investigation
Guard privilege closely from the outset Want disclosure on your terms Use attorneys in investigation. No
attorney = no attorney-client privilege Use a separate engagement letter for
outside counsel – investigation to discover facts and for legal advice
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
38
Safeguarding Privilege for In-House Counsel Communications
In-House counsel have dual roles to give business advice and legal advice
Only legal advice privileged Only include necessary people in
communications Expressly state that the communication is
for purposes of legal advice Avoid “Reply to All” or sending string emails
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
39
Disclosing the Investigation Report
Strategic decision to waive privilege as to investigative report
Considerations:- Severity of findings- Company success in addressing misconduct- Will the conduct come to light anyways
(whistleblowers, leaks to media, etc…)- Is the report likely to prevent action against
the company or to invite adverse action against the company
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
40
Waiver of Privilege
Selective waiver generally not permissible
Report may be discoverable by additional parties if disclosed
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
41
Ethics Rules for General Counsel
ABA Model Rule 1.13 - Organization as Client
Florida Rules of Professional Conduct 4-1.13 – Organization as Client
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
42
ABA Model Rule 1.13(a)
A lawyer employed or retained by an organization represents the organization acting through its duly authorized constituents
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
43
Florida Rule 4-1.13(a)
Representation of Organization. A lawyer employed or retained by an organization represents the organization acting through its duly authorized constituents.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
44
ABA Model Rule 1.13 (b)
If a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer, employee or other person associated with the organization is engaged in action, intends to act or refuses to act in a matter related to the representation that is a violation of a legal obligation to the organization, or a violation of law that reasonably might be imputed to the organization, and that is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, then the lawyer shall proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization. Unless the lawyer reasonably believes that it is not necessary in the best interest of the organization to do so, the lawyer shall refer the matter to higher authority in the organization, including, if warranted by the circumstances to the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization as determined by applicable law.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
45
Florida Rule 4-1.13(b)
Violations by Officers or Employees of Organization. If a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer, employee, or other person associated with the organization is engaged in action, intends to act, or refuses to act in a matter related to the representation that is a violation of a legal obligation to the organization or a violation of law that reasonably might be imputed to the organization and is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, the lawyer shall proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization. In determining how to proceed, the lawyer shall give due consideration to the seriousness of the violation and its consequences, the scope and nature of the lawyer's representation, the responsibility in the organization and the apparent motivation of the person involved, the policies of the organization concerning such matters, and any other relevant considerations. Any measures taken shall be designed to minimize disruption of the organization and the risk of revealing information relating to the representation to persons outside the organization.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
46
Florida Rule 4-1.13(b)(cont.)
Such measures may include among others:- (1) asking reconsideration of the matter;- (2) advising that a separate legal opinion on
the matter be sought for presentation to appropriate authority in the organization; and
- (3) referring the matter to higher authority in the organization, including, if warranted by the seriousness of the matter, referral to the highest authority that can act in behalf of the organization as determined by applicable law.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
47
ABA Model Rule 1.13(c)
Except as provided in paragraph (d), if- (1) despite the lawyer's efforts in accordance with
paragraph (b) the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization insists upon or fails to address in a timely and appropriate manner an action, or a refusal to act, that is clearly a violation of law, and
- (2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the violation is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the organization, then the lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation whether or not Rule 1.6 permits such disclosure, but only if and to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent substantial injury to the organization.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
48
ABA Model Rule 1.13(d)
Paragraph (c) shall not apply with respect to information relating to a lawyer's representation of an organization to investigate an alleged violation of law, or to defend the organization or an officer, employee or other constituent associated with the organization against a claim arising out of an alleged violation of law.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
49
ABA Model Rule 1.13(e)
A lawyer who reasonably believes that he or she has been discharged because of the lawyer's actions taken pursuant to paragraphs (b) or (c), or who withdraws under circumstances that require or permit the lawyer to take action under either of those paragraphs, shall proceed as the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to assure that the organization's highest authority is informed of the lawyer's discharge or withdrawal.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
50
Florida Rule 4-1.13(c)
Resignation as Counsel for Organization. If, despite the lawyer's efforts in accordance with subdivision (b), the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization insists upon action, or a refusal to act, that is clearly a violation of law and is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, the lawyer may resign in accordance with rule 4-1.16.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
51
ABA Model Rule 1.13(f)
(f) In dealing with an organization's directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders or other constituents, a lawyer shall explain the identity of the client when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the organization's interests are adverse to those of the constituents with whom the lawyer is dealing.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
52
Florida Rule 4-1.13(d)
Identification of Client. In dealing with an organization's directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders, or other constituents, a lawyer shall explain the identity of the client when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the organization's interests are adverse to those of the constituents with whom the lawyer is dealing.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
53
ABA Model Rule 1.13(g)
A lawyer representing an organization may also represent any of its directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders or other constituents, subject to the provisions of Rule 1.7. If the organization's consent to the dual representation is required by Rule 1.7, the consent shall be given by an appropriate official of the organization other than the individual who is to be represented, or by the shareholders.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
54
Florida Rule 4-1.13(e)
(e) Representing Directors, Officers, Employees, Members, Shareholders, or Other Constituents of Organization. A lawyer representing an organization may also represent any of its directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders, or other constituents, subject to the provisions of rule 4-1.7 If the organization's consent to the dual representation is required by rule 4-1.7, the consent shall be given by an appropriate official of the organization other than the individual who is to be represented, or by the shareholders
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
55
Parent/Subsidiary Representation
When Interests Aligned
General Rule - Common and entirely ethical to represent both.
Privilege generally extends to communications with representatives of entire corporate family
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
56
Diverging Interests
Potential scenarios- Sale or bankruptcy of poorly performing
subsidiary- Liability issues with subsidiary- Subsidiary claiming that parent is not
meeting obligations
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
57
Privilege Between Disputing Parent/Subsidiary
Who owns/controls the privilege
What is discoverable
Can counsel continue to represent
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
58
Social Media
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
59
Social Media
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
60
Social Media
1. DEFAMATION2. HARASSMENT/DISCRIMINATION ISSUES3. CRIMINAL ACTIVITY4. IP INFRINGEMENT (TRADEMARK,
COPYRIGHT)5. BANDWIDTH CONSIDERATIONS6. LOSS OF PRODUCTIVITY7. EXPOSURE TO VIRUSES8. UNITENTIONAL DISCLOSURE OF
PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
61
Social Media
Stored Communications Act Electronic Communications Privacy Act Computer Fraud & Abuse Act Patriot Act Identity Theft Enforcement Act Occupational Safety & Health Act Anti-Discrimination Laws (Title VII of Civil Rights Act, ADA, ADEA, etc.) Sarbanes Oxley National Labor Relations Act Securities Law of 1933 Common Laws Claims (defamation, invasion of privacy, etc.)
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
62
Social Media
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 1.1 CompetenceA lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
63
Social Media
Florida Rule 4-1.1
Perhaps the most fundamental legal skill consists of determining what kind of legal problems a situation may involve, a skill that necessarily transcends any particular specialized knowledge. A lawyer can provide adequate representation in a wholly novel field through necessary study.
Competent handling of a particular matter includes inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem, and use of methods and procedures meeting the standards of competent practitioners. It also includes adequate preparation.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
64
Social Media
Recent Decisions Regarding Attorneys’ Ethical Obligations to Maintain Technological Competence:
Seven Seas Cruises S. DE R.I. v. V Ships Leisure Sam, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19465 (S.D. Fla. 2011)
Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 911 (S.D. Cal 2008)
Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc. Of Am. Sec., LLC,685 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
65
Social Media
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 1.18 Duties To Prospective Client
(a) A person who discusses with a lawyer the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client.(b) Even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has had
discussions with a prospective client shall not use or reveal information learned in the consultation, except as Rule 1.9 would permit with respect to information of a former client.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
66
Social Media
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT - Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee
Opinion Number: 2009-20Date of Issue: November 17, 2009
ISSUE:
Whether a judge may add lawyers who may appear before the judge as "friends" on a social networking site, and permit such lawyers to add the judge as their "friend.“
ANSWER: No.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
67
Social Media
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 3.5 Impartiality And Decorum Of The Tribunal
A lawyer shall not:(a) seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law;(b) communicate ex parte with such a person during the proceeding unless authorized to do so by law or court order
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
68
Social Media
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 3.5 Impartiality And Decorum Of The Tribunal
A lawyer shall not:(c) communicate with a juror or prospective juror after discharge of the jury if:
(1) the communication is prohibited by law or court order;(2) the juror has made known to the lawyer a desire not to
communicate; or(3) the communication involves misrepresentation, coercion,
duress or harassment.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
69
Social Media
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or
litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by
means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
70
Social Media
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
71
Social Media
ABA Rule 3.6 Stroble v. California, 343 U.S. 181, 195 (1952) D.L v. Slattery, Case No. 10-61902-Civ-Moore
(S.D. Fla. March 31, 2011) E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. v. Aquamar, S.A,
33 So.3d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) Rodriguez ex rel. Posso-Rodriguez v. Feinstein,
734 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
72
Social Media
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 4.1 Truthfulness In Statements To Others
In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:
(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
73
Social Media
PHILADELPHIA BAR ASSOCIATIONProfessional Guidance Committee
Opinion Number: 2009-02Date of Issue: March, 2009
ISSUE:
Whether employing a third party to “friend” an unrepresented, non-party witness to gain access to her account for impeachment purposes would be permissible.
ANSWER: No.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
74
Social Media
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 5.5 Unauthorized Practice Of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice Of Law
(b) A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction shall not:
(1) except as authorized by these Rules or other law, establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law; or
(2) hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
75
Social Media
Florida Rule 4-5.5
(b) Prohibited Conduct. A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in Florida shall not:
(1) except as authorized by other law, establish an office or other regular presence in Florida for the practice of law;
(2) hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in Florida; or
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
76
Social Media
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 7.1 Communications Concerning A Lawyer's Services
A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or misleading if it contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
77
Social Media
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 7.4 Communication of Fields of Practice and Specialization
(d) A lawyer shall not state or imply that a lawyer is certified as a specialist in a particular field of law, unless:
(1) the lawyer has been certified as a specialist by an organization that has been approved by an appropriate state authority or that has been accredited by the American Bar Association; and(2) the name of the certifying organization is clearly identified in the communication.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
78
Social Media
Florida Rule 4-7.2 Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services
(6) Communication of Fields of Practice. A lawyer may communicate the fact that the lawyer does or does not practice in particular fields of law. A lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is "certified,"
"board certified," a "specialist," or an "expert" except as follows:
(A) Florida Bar Certified Lawyers. A lawyer who complies with the Florida certification plan as set forth in chapter 6, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, may inform the public and other lawyers of the lawyer’s certified areas of legal practice. Such communications should identify The Florida Bar as the certifying organization and may state that the lawyer is "certified," "board certified," a "specialist in (area of certification)," or an "expert in (area of certification)."
B) Lawyers Certified by Organizations Other Than The Florida Bar or Another State Bar. A lawyer certified by an organization other than The Florida Bar or another state bar may inform the public and other lawyers of the
lawyer’s certified area(s) of legal practice by stating that the lawyer is "certified," "board certified," a "specialist in (area of certification)," or an "expert in (area of certification)" if: (i) the organization’s program has been accredited by The Florida Bar as provided elsewhere in these Rules Regulating The Florida Bar; and,(ii) the member includes the full
name of the organization in all communications pertaining to such certification.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
79
Social Media
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 8.4 Misconduct
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly
assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
80
Resources Published Ethics Opinions Published Ethics Opinions http://www.floridabar.org/tfb/TFBETOpin.nsf/EthicsIndex?OpenForm
Rules Regulating The Florida Bar Rules Regulating The Florida Bar http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/WContents?OpenView
ABA Center for Professional Responsibility ABA Center for Professional Responsibility http://www.abanet.org/cpr/ethics
Informal Advisory OpinionInformal Advisory OpinionFlorida Bar’s Ethics Department – (800)235-8619 (M-F, 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.)
Resources
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
81
Disclaimer
The information contained in this presentation was designed to provide a BASIC understanding of some of the ethical aspects corporate counsel must consider in the performance of their duties.
The foregoing information has been summarized for the purpose of this seminar and should not be construed as a complete analysis of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar or the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
82
Questions/ Questions/ Discussion Discussion
Ethical Considerations for In-House Counsel: Rules vs. Reality © 2012 Fox Rothschild LLP
83
Contact Information
Peter L. Blacklock, Esq.
561.804.4457
Elliot A. Hallak, Esq.
561.804.4439
Top Related