Foreign Relations
In-house counsel can overcome the challenges of working for a U.S. subsidiary.
February 28, 2009 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
With the emergence of the global economy, foreign corporations increasingly have been either acquiring U.S. companies or establishing U.S. subsidiaries. As a result, many in-house counsel are now working for subsidiaries of a foreign-controlled corporation, and they face unique challenges. By taking some basic steps to confront these challenges, the experience of working for a U.S. subsidiary can become a rewarding one for both the client and the in-house attorney. Here are three ways to start building a productive relationship:
Emphasize the benefits of attorney-client privilege.
The CEO and some of the key players in the U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation frequently are expatriates. Many of these executives–particularly those coming from a civil law country–have never been exposed to the attorney-client privilege.
Certainly the attorney-client privilege has many obvious advantages for any client. For the general counsel, a natural by-product is that the chief executive will treat you as a sounding board–someone with whom he or she can engage in an open dialogue regarding both business and legal issues confronted by the U.S. subsidiary.
In-house counsel should explain the value attached to the attorney-client privilege. Once the expatriate executive understands the privilege, he or she will be more willing to reach out to the general counsel in a fruitful exchange of ideas.
Report directly to the CEO.
In corporations based outside the U.S., particularly in Europe, the general counsel usually reports to the chief financial officer. His or her legal advice is filtered through the CFO. This reporting structure compartmentalizes the role of the in-house counsel and the value that he or she provides to the client. Some U.S. subsidiaries follow the foreign model.
For the general counsel of a U.S. subsidiary, reporting to the CEO should be a condition of employment. A direct reporting line to the chief executive officer will reinforce the significance of the attorney-client privilege and provide the general counsel with direct access to the U.S. subsidiary's chief decision-maker as he or she formulates business decisions.
Just as importantly, the general counsel should request that he or she become a member of the company's executive committee. In this role, the general counsel will be able to participate with the other key executives in the development of the business' strategic decisions. This will permit the general counsel to practice preventative law–guiding the business people so as to avoid legal issues before they erupt into controversy or litigation.
Instruct expatriate executives on the U.S. legal system.
Most business people struggle to understand the U.S. legal system and its impact on their business. This is especially so for the foreign expatriate in charge of the U.S. operations. You should devote sufficient time to educating your expatriate executives about how U.S. laws and regulations affect the conduct of their particular business. You should also instruct them on the U.S. litigation process and the open discovery rules. This will help your clients to anticipate issues and seek out your advice prior to making business decisions.
Keep in mind that this is a continuous process–not just one that you engage in when an expatriate executive first joins your company. The education process should be casual in nature; this will encourage dialogue with the executive. Once again, this will permit in-house counsel to focus on preventative counseling, rather than dealing with legal issues after they become contentious.
Remember that you add the most value when you combine your knowledge of your client's business with your legal expertise. In this way you become an equal player.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBallooning Workloads, Dearth of Advancement Opportunities Prime In-House Attorneys to Pull Exit Hatch
The Reason a GC Abruptly Departs May Not Be What You Think
Trending Stories
- 1Ex-Big Law Attorney Disbarred for Defrauding $1 Million of Client Money
- 2'New Circumstances': Winston & Strawn Seek Expedited Relief in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
- 3Productivity Suite Startup Macro Announces $12 Million Funding Round
- 4Rudy Giuliani Loses Bid to Dismiss $1.3 Million Davidoff Hutcher & Citron Suit Over Unpaid Legal Fees
- 5Discovery Dispute: Investigated Judge Boxed Out by Work Product Doctrine
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250