This is an extract of our Lawyers For Companies And Other Organisations document, which we sell as part of our Professional Responsibility Outlines collection written by the top tier of NYU School Of Law students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Professional Responsibility Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
07. Lawyers for Companies and Other Organisations
In-house lawyers is employed by the company client, management decide her title, income…etc. threat to professional independence
Lawyers retained by large companies who produce most of their income also threat to independence
Employed lawyer filed/ demoted because of her refusal to act unethically/ insistence that co. act lawfully may have claim for retaliatory discharge Crews v Buckman Labs
But not all jurisdiction allowed, Illinois rejected for lawyers Balla v Gambro
ABA Rule 1.13
(a) A lawyer employed or retained by an organization represents the organization acting through its duly authorized constituents.
o (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.
o (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.
o (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.
Rule 4.3 Dealing With Unrepresented Person
In dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel, a lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested.
o When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer's role in the matter, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding.
o The lawyer shall not give legal advice to an unrepresented person, other than the advice to secure counsel,
if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the interests of such a person are or have a reasonable possibility of being in conflict with the interests of the client.
"Should We Forbid Secret Settlements That Conceal Danger?" (433)
Proposed Amendment to Rule 3.2(B): Do You Support It? Which version?
o A lawyer shall not participate in offering or making an agreement,
o whether in connection with a lawsuit or otherwise,
o to prevent or restrict the availability to the public of information that [the lawyer reasonably believes] [a reasonable lawyer would believe] directly concerns a substantial danger to the public health or safety, or to the health or safety of any particular individual(s).
Conflicts and Confidentiality in Entity Representation
1. Internal Investigation
- Advantages of hiring lawyer to conduct internal investigations:
o Public relations, stay ahead of/ keep up with whatever prosecutors are finding, keep lawyer's work secret as it is privilege
- Lawyers are positioned to stop corporate frauds and crimes at their inception - Lawyers will either know about companies' misbehavior or be on notice-"Please Just Find Out What Happened?" (434)
o What should the lawyer say if the witness asks: (i) "Do I need a Lawyer?" (ii) "Will you represent me,
too?" (iii) "Will the company pay my lawyer?"
Maybe, as far as there is no conflict. But not representing now
Maybe, "you may find a private lawyer to seek separate advice
But would then worry that the witness would not talk now
Co. may have policy that mandate employees to cooperate
If lawyer represent both + conflict between lawyer would need to withdraw
Elements of a Good "Upjohn" Warning
We represent the Company only.
We do not represent you. We are not your lawyers. You are not our client
Anything you tell us may be shared with the Company.
The Company controls the attorney-client privilege and our duty of confidentiality for your communications with us
The Company can waive any privilege or confidentiality protections for your communications with us
Do you understand what I have said? Do you have any questions?
o Read from a script so you can say you did.
o It becomes a business record under the business record exception to the hearsay rule.
o After you are finished, date and sign the script.
o File it in a safe place.
o Have a witness in the room
In re Grand Jury Subpoena (436)
o Lawyers conduct internal investigation at AOL, gave Upjohn warnings to officers being interviewed.
Interviews were privileged - but does AOL or officers owe the privilege?
o Officers: joint representation with AOL + common interest arrangement occurs when each of 2 or more lawyers/ firms separately represents a client on matter of common interest between the 2 clients
Held: attorney-client relationship between investigating lawyer and officers were missing at the time of the interviews, no evidence that the officers were seeking legal advice from the lawyers no privilege attached to the officers' communication with AOL attorneys
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Professional Responsibility Outlines.